Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: New C operator -- would it be a good idea? |
| Date | 2012-09-14 13:17 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <k2vapo$9gp$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <20120911115303.248@kylheku.com> <k2qhje$kt2$1@blue-new.rahul.net> <03509ac8-98f8-4e7c-b416-0aaf751f9dda@googlegroups.com> <slrn3vfsk55ojb.3l7.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> <0.4ad73aefd0c3994bd1d4.20120914114605BST.87627ghogi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> >>> You could have |x| syntax. That would look a bit more mathematical. >> >> In combination with the '|' and '||' operators it would lead >> to ambiguous syntax > > Not if they were treated like other C tokens. C has a rule that causes > its lexer to recognise the longest sequence of characters that make up a > valid token. This just wasn't a great idea in the first place. Even mathematical notation usually doesn't split a single operator into two pieces. Besides |x| (and ||x|| if you think that's different), nothing else is occurring to me, offhand. abs( ) is way better. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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