Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #6083
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... |
| Date | 2015-12-30 18:17 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <n613e6$jca$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <n5v0p5$8s3$1@dont-email.me> <n6063m$ccb$1@dont-email.me> <n60m14$lf$1@dont-email.me> <n60nkf$65m$1@dont-email.me> <87bn977v7v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
On 30/12/15 17:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
>> On 30/12/15 14:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> <snip>
>>> int i = -6;
>>> unsigned int j = 42;
>>> if(i < j)
>>> {
>>> puts("-6 is less than 42");
>>> }
> <snip>
>> Of course, this in itself is just a specialist case of the difference
>> between "normal" mathematics and numbers in C. Replace the first two
>> lines with "int16_t i = 1000000; int16_t j = 4000000;" and you'll find
>> that four million is apparently smaller than one million.
>
> You might find that, but you also might not! There is a conversion
> which is implementation-defined (and might even raise a signal).
>
Absolutely - which is why you always have to be careful with arithmetic
in C.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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