Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Non-constant initializers |
| Date | 2011-05-16 21:23 -0400 |
| Organization | Friends of the Galactic Collective |
| Message-ID | <3a1cf904bc66550-a6680@gmail.com> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <slrnisudlh.2cpo.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> <fd8c08cd3702e54-40650@gmail.com> <4DD10A23.2AD0@mindspring.com> <861f41ec959c6ba-ac095@gmail.com> <slrnit2sp1.1pme.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> |
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 07:10:23PM +0000, Seebs wrote:
> On 2011-05-16, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sure, I know that, and it even makes sense. That's not my issue at
> > this point. What bugs me now about all this is that a C source file
> > contains two sections: One in which variable declarations and
> > program statements are valid, and one in which variable declarations
> > (and assignments) are valid, but where scalar quantities must be
> > resolved at compile time.
>
> Yup.
>
> > I realize that in practice, variables may be declared out of function
> > scope, and that the language must offer a facility to initialize them
> > to a known value (for practical reasons). But when you're looking at
> > the code in an editor the only thing distinguishing these two "zones"
> > is the presence of an open/close brace pair from a function call. It
> > seems arbitrary, and I guess there's lots of reasons why it was done
> > this way -- which I won't speculate about here to avoid flames.
>
> Calling it arbitrary will get you a lot more "flames" than thinking about
> the reasons would.
>
> Looking at things in an editor is uninformative. Think about them compiling.
>
> > I suppose the real thing here to note is that languages like Perl or
> > Python are insulated from the processor architecture to a much
> > greater degree than C, and so some things are easier/harder than
> > others in these languages from the programmer standpoint.
>
> This hasn't got a thing to do with processor architecture. It has to do
> with the order in which things happen.
>
> In perl, Python, Ruby, and the like, everything is being logically executed
> when you hit it. Except BEGIN sections and the like... and even those are
> logically "executed" as you hit them, except that executing them consists of
> putting them on the list of things to do before running anything else...
> which list is executed in the order they were hit.
>
> In C, though, things aren't being "executed" when the compiler sees them.
> They're being translated, stored up, and then shuffled together.
>
> Imagine two modules of perl:
> foo.pl:
> sub bar() { return 3; }
> $x = foo();
> 1;
>
> bar.pl:
> sub foo() { return 3; }
> $y = bar();
> 1;
>
> Now require these both from another module. You'll get an error. Which
> error? The one that comes from the one you require first. But... Put
> the functions in one, the assignments in the other, require the functions
> first, and it works.
>
> This is because the evaluation of these things is *well ordered*. There
> is a strict, unambiguous, definition of the order in which things occur.
>
> Now consider two modules of C:
> foo.c:
> int bar(void) { return 3; }
> int x;
> void init_x(void) { x = foo(); }
>
> bar.c:
> int foo(void) { return 3; }
> int y;
> void init_y(void) { y = bar(); }
>
> main.c:
> extern int foo(), bar(), x, y;
> extern void init_x(), init_y();
>
> int
> main(void) {
> init_x();
> init_y();
> }
>
> Now try any combo you like:
> $ cc -o t foo.c bar.c main.c
> $ cc -o t main.c bar.c foo.c
>
> It'll always work. Why? Because things aren't being "executed" in the order
> that the compiler sees them. Things are being compiled, which doesn't involve
> any ordering of anything, then linked, which doesn't involve any ordering
> of anything (except that some linkers are sorta dumb), and then at runtime,
> everything has already been resolved, adjusted, and figured out...
>
> But that's because the language can provide an unambiguous definition of
> the order in which it runs code, and that ordering doesn't depend on when
> you compile things, or in which order, or anything like that.
>
> The C solution is, arguably, less flexible in terms of what you write, but
> it provides much greater confidence in what your code will do when executed.
> s
> This distinction isn't arbitrary. Yes, some implementations allow some kind
> of initialization hooks, which may or may not have well-defined interactions
> with each other, or with the library. But... In perl, if you need one
> initializer to run before another, you execute it first. In C, you don't
> really have that option for file-scope things, because there's no "first".
I have no argument to this, I am in full agreement with your summary.
Since you've arranged the execution order in the code, the compiler
just does what you want.
> > I'm not
> > going to switch to C++, so for my purposes, I'll be implementing some
> > other solution. Possibly, I many end up without any global variables
> > at all.
>
> This is nearly always the right choice. :)
It's a bloody lot of work though!
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
Should a professional politician be charged with molestation if he
kisses babies while attending political rallies?
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 22:59 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:07 +1200
Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:17 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:20 +1200
Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:30 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-13 11:34 +1200
Re: Non-constant initializers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-12 16:52 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 00:13 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-14 01:28 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 13:52 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers kym@kymhorsell.com - 2011-05-14 01:54 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Columbus sailed the ocean China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-14 01:07 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers kym@kymhorsell.com - 2011-05-14 09:22 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 17:14 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-14 00:11 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-12 18:08 -0500
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-12 19:22 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-12 18:53 -0500
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 13:59 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-14 14:19 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 15:04 -0500
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 15:10 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-14 16:01 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 16:57 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 14:30 -0500
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 15:25 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-14 13:05 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 17:00 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 16:14 -0500
Re: Non-constant initializers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 16:49 -0500
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 18:21 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 21:26 -0500
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-15 14:01 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-14 17:45 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-14 18:09 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-15 04:01 +0100
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-15 13:26 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-16 02:32 +0100
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-15 03:59 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 04:49 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-16 07:27 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 09:24 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-16 19:10 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 21:23 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-16 19:10 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 21:16 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-16 21:37 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 22:42 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-17 02:40 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-16 22:50 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-17 04:14 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 17:37 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-17 22:22 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 18:33 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-18 01:58 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 12:45 -0400
Re: Non-constant initializers "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-18 19:30 +0200
Re: Non-constant initializers Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-18 20:01 +0100
Re: bug-free C code (was: Non-constant initializers) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-19 02:21 +0000
Re: bug-free C code (was: Non-constant initializers) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-18 20:00 -0700
Re: bug-free C code (was: Non-constant initializers) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-19 03:14 +0000
Re: bug-free C code (was: Non-constant initializers) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-19 07:49 -0700
Re: bug-free C code (was: Non-constant initializers) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-19 15:16 +0000
Re: bug-free C code Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-18 20:02 -0700
Re: bug-free C code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-18 20:09 -0700
Re: bug-free C code Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-18 23:24 -0400
Re: bug-free C code Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-19 06:39 +0000
Re: bug-free C code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-19 08:05 -0700
Re: bug-free C code Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-19 16:22 +0000
Re: bug-free C code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-19 11:36 -0700
Re: bug-free C code Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-19 12:21 -0700
Re: bug-free C code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-19 13:12 -0700
Re: bug-free C code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-05-19 21:52 +0000
Re: bug-free C code Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-19 22:16 +0000
Re: bug-free C code Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 17:25 -0500
Re: bug-free C code Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-20 13:32 -0400
Re: bug-free C code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-05-19 21:51 +0000
Re: bug-free C code Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-20 13:30 -0400
Re: bug-free C code "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 23:13 -0400
Re: bug-free C code Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-19 08:23 +0100
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-13 00:15 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-13 11:01 +0200
Re: Non-constant initializers Columbus sailed the ocean China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-12 16:30 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers Columbus sailed the ocean China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-12 16:15 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-12 23:28 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-05-12 18:01 -0600
Re: Non-constant initializers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-12 18:15 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-05-12 22:56 -0600
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-13 05:18 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-05-13 09:10 -0600
Re: Non-constant initializers Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-13 20:56 +0000
Re: Non-constant initializers Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-18 23:47 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-19 08:15 -0700
Re: Non-constant initializers Fred the Freshwater Catfish <usenet.fred@bdtd.invalid> - 2011-05-13 23:57 +0000
csiph-web