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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26294

Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea?

Show all headers | View raw

"Ike Naar" <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> wrote in message 
news:slrn3vfsk52vjs.2sc.ike@iceland.freeshell.org...
> On 2012-09-12, Edward A. Falk <falk@rahul.net> wrote:
>> This one alone is sufficient.  C has managed to evolve into the most 
>> portable
>> language there is, primarily because of its stability.
>> (Although I wouldn't mind built-in abs(), min(), and max() functions, I 
>> admit
>> it's too late for even those.)
>
> <stdlib.h> has abs(), labs(), llabs().
>
> <math.h> has fabs(), fmin(), fmax() for the floatingpoint types.

They might be built-in, but they are still just functions with all their 
limitations:

o Not being able to use them in constant expressions
o Having to use different names depending on the exact type of the argument

So there's nothing to stop someone defined their own min()/max() functions, 
except:

o They would not be standard
o They would need min, umin, lmin, lumin, llmin, llumin, and the same for 
max. (You could probably get away with providing only long long versions, 
but there would be a lot of unnecessary promotions.)

If min(), max() were operators, then that would be it; you wouldn't need 
anything else, not even fmin() and fmax().

-- 
Bartc 

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

Thread

New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-10 12:48 -0700
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-09-11 14:27 -0400
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-11 16:53 -0700
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-11 19:24 +0000
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-09-11 15:56 -0400
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-11 14:15 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 15:56 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-12 00:56 -0700
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-12 10:55 +0100
            Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-13 07:47 +0200
              Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-13 10:47 +0100
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 15:25 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-12 09:39 +0200
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 08:33 -0700
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-13 09:53 +0200
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2012-09-12 17:43 +0000
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 15:35 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-13 06:34 +0000
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-13 11:47 +0100
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-13 23:52 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-14 07:53 +0000
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-14 11:46 +0100
            Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2012-09-14 13:17 +0000
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 11:35 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-14 02:04 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-14 21:11 +0000
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-09-14 11:39 -0700
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-11 22:32 +0100
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-11 15:19 -0700
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? gordonb.22y0w@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2012-09-11 17:27 -0500
    Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 18:51 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-12 10:49 +0100
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-09-12 23:23 -0700
        Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-13 12:08 +0100
          Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-13 15:20 -0700
      Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? gordonb.h093l@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2012-09-14 15:13 -0500
  Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 20:38 +0100

csiph-web