Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Is there a shorter solution ? |
| Date | 2011-08-10 13:23 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <ln4o1p9fsp.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <27445c82-9386-477b-a686-09658ce156f8@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <2e70f5da-2af5-4a9c-a6f7-047288cf670d@y8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <j1udcm$p6l$1@dont-email.me> <ln8vr19k54.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <j1ukq2$hr2$1@dont-email.me> |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 08/10/2011 02:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> ...
>>> All logical expressions in C indicate truth by having a result of 1.
>>
>> For certain meanings of the phrase "logical expressions".
>>
>> The <, <=, >, >=, ==, !=, !, &&, and || operators are all defined to
>> yield either 0 or 1. I believe that's an exhaustive list.
>
> That's the meaning that I intended for "logical expressions".
I assumed so, but it's not clear from the phrase itself just what it
means; someone else might easily think of ``isdigit(c)'' as a logical
expression. (The standard doesn't define the term.)
>> On the other hand, of course, a scalar expression used as a condition is
>> treated as false if it compares equal to 0, true otherwise.
>
> And that is not. I'd refer to those as conditions, not logical
> expressions. It's a distinction between what the value of an expression
> means (0: false, 1: true) and how the value of the expression is used
> (0: false, non-0: true).
That's a useful distinction, and it would be nice to have universally
agreed terms make that distinction.
> In a very different but somewhat C-like language, it would be
> philosophically cleaner to have logical expressions give results of
> boolean type; conditions constrained to take values of boolean type; and
> no conversions (neither implicit nor explicit) to or from the boolean
> type. The equivalent of C's implicit conversions could be done by
> non-boolean_value != 0
> boolean_value ? 1 : 0
> It would break way too much existing code to make any such change to C
> itself, of course.
Yes, and there are plenty of languages like that, though most of them
aren't particularly C-like (Pascal, Ada). To avoid triggering a
language war, I'll just mention that I do personally prefer one approach
over the other without saying which.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is there a shorter solution ? HumbleWorker <amardeep.developer@gmail.com> - 2011-08-06 10:25 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? Ike Naar <ike@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2011-08-06 17:42 +0000
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-06 17:44 +0000
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-08 09:47 -0400
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-08 08:09 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? HumbleWorker <amardeep.developer@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 07:20 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-10 09:43 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? HumbleWorker <amardeep.developer@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 09:51 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-10 12:57 -0400
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? HumbleWorker <amardeep.developer@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 10:13 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-08-10 10:17 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? HumbleWorker <amardeep.developer@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 10:29 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-08-10 11:29 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-08-11 03:02 +0100
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-12 11:39 -0400
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-12 09:06 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-10 14:00 -0400
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-11 01:46 +0000
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-10 11:49 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-10 15:03 -0400
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-10 13:23 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? gordonb.d3r7p@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-08-10 18:15 -0500
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? HumbleWorker <amardeep.developer@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 11:26 -0700
Re: Is there a shorter solution ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-10 15:14 -0400
csiph-web