Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #6084

Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad...

Show key headers only | View raw

On 30/12/15 17:35, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 30/12/15 15:48, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Since this is comp.programming, you should perhaps have said that mixing
>> signed and unsigned expressions _in C_ is often a bad sign.  It may be
>> in other languages too, but there are others in which it is both common
>> and harmless.
> 
> Fair comment. So perhaps we could start by looking at how some other
> languages deal with unsigned integer types (or indeed whether they
> support them at all). I should say at the outset that the information I
> present below is unsatisfactorily sparse.
> 
> Ada supports signed and unsigned integer types. I couldn't find any
> rules on how mixed-sign arithmetic is done (but that doesn't mean there
> aren't any).
> 
> BASIC - tricky one. ISO/IEC 10279 defines the language, but I couldn't
> find a freely available draft.
> 
> COBOL (according to a rather strangely-formatted draft ISO Standard from
> 2005) seems to support unsigned char, short, long, and even double. It
> isn't clear (from a quick scan) how COBOL deals with mixed-sign arithmetic.
> 
> D's rules are similar to C's. Particularly, if the two types are of the
> same size, then the signed type is converted to unsigned.
> 
> Eiffel supports unsigned integer types, but I found nothing in ECMA-367
> to show how they interact with signed types.
> 
> Fortran's draft standard (n3501) is rather odd. In Note 15.9 we find
> that "...Fortran does not provide direct support for unsigned kinds of
> integers", and yet in 4.4.1 Integer Type the text reads "The value of a
> signed integer zero is the same as the value of an unsigned integer
> zero", which suggests that there is /some/ kind of support for unsigned
> integers.
> 
> Go supports unsigned integer types, but a brief perusal of the spec
> didn't turn up any rules for mixed-sign arithmetic.
> 
> I ran out of time to extend this alphabetical list any further, but one
> of the first languages I thought of was PHP. I found it surprising that
> PHP doesn't appear to support an unsigned integer type (something that
> it has never before occurred to me to check, which suggests to me that I
> don't use PHP quite as often as I thought I did).
> 

You didn't get as far as Python, I take it.  In Python, the integer
types just get as big as you need (until you run out of time or memory).
 So to a large extent you can assume your integers really are
mathematical integers, and add them as much as you want.  (So "unsigned"
integers don't really exist.)

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 20:31 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-12-29 21:20 +0000
  Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-29 23:13 +0100
    Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 22:19 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 09:56 +0100
        Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 13:28 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 14:55 +0100
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:32 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:17 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:01 +0000
          Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 15:48 +0000
            Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:35 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:19 +0100
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 17:39 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:26 +0000
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-12-30 18:32 +0100
              Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:55 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:15 +0000
                Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 22:00 +0000
      Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +1300

csiph-web