Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #148022
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? |
| Date | 2019-11-15 11:30 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <qqluok$j2b$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <_85zF.5075$II7.2317@fx17.iad> <qqj564$2m4$1@dont-email.me> <fxgzF.21520$1S4.4613@fx01.iad> <8h8rse1ra0sel6snvfbrucvcbobn2okhg5@4ax.com> <MkjzF.11287$P82.1748@fx15.iad> |
On 14/11/2019 22:08, DFS wrote:
> On 11/14/2019 2:03 PM, Barry Schwarz wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:56:01 -0500, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since sizeof(seq)/sizeof(seq[0]) can only be >= 0 the compiler? decides
>>> the result is unsigned, is that right?
>>
>> No. Since both operands of the divide operator have the same type, no
>> conversion is required and the result has the same type as the
>> operands. The sizeof operator evaluates to type size_t which just
>> happens to be unsigned. So both operands and result are size_t and
>> therefore unsigned but not for the reason you suggest.
>>
>> There are free copies of the standard available for download which
>> would allow to answer these questions. In this case, section 6.3.1.8.
>> If you want to seriously program in C you should get a copy. It could
>> help you avoid many of the mistakes in your code.
>
>
> Is this the latest draft before the costly standards doc from iso.org?
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20181230041359if_/http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/abq/c17_updated_proposed_fdis.pdf
>
Yes, I think so (certainly it is close enough for all practical
purposes). Note that the C standard is not a tutorial or a beginners
document - it often takes a long time to get used to it, and to be
familiar with the different parts. I personally would not recommend it
for most C programmers, except for very occasional reference. But
you'll see references to parts of it in posts here, and then it can be
handy to look at. (References are often made to other versions of the
standards, such as C11 or C99, but the section numbering is mostly
unchanged, as is most of the content - excluding the atomics, threading,
and a few other additions in C11.)
I think this website <https://en.cppreference.com/w/> is worth
bookmarking. It aims to give accurate information about the language
and standard library, but is easier to navigate than the standards, has
some examples, and is clear about which C standards apply. (It also
covers C++.)
>
>
>
>>> Comparing int i to the (unsigned int) number of elements in the array is
>>> somehow worth a warning? Not an egregious warning, but this is the kind
>>> of thing that makes some people dislike C. It's like you can't write
>>> working, reasonable code without being smacked on the back of the hand
>>> with a ruler.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you made i unsigned you would not get the
>> warning at all. Some even put the definition of i inside the for
>> statement as in
>> for (unsigned int i = 0; ...
>> to insure the scope is limited to the loop. This will work even if
>> there is an i defined before the for statement. The i in the for
>> statement hides the i defined previously but only for the duration of
>> the loop.
>
>
> Interesting. Works in nested for..loops too:
>
>
> int i = 100, j = 200;
>
> for(int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> for(int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
> printf("(%d %d) ",i,j);
> }
> }
>
> printf("\n%d %d\n",i,j);
>
>
> (0 0) (0 1) (0 2) (1 0) (1 1) (1 2) (2 0) (2 1) (2 2)
> 100 200
>
> But... I see danger ahead. I'll probably not use that technique.
>
Usually you want to avoid shadowing existing identifiers - it can lead
to confusion. But the rules are consistent, and can be helpful. It is
particularly useful to be able to hide global identifiers with local
ones - it means that if you have included glibc's maths headers, for
example, you can still use names like "y0", "y1", "j0" and "j1" in your
functions without fear of confusion with Bessel functions.
You can use "gcc -Wshadow" to warn you on identifier shadowing if you
are keen to avoid it.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-12 15:55 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-12 21:20 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-12 23:28 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-13 10:52 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-13 10:16 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-13 16:53 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-13 11:18 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-12 23:30 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-15 05:12 +1300
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 16:34 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-15 10:07 +1300
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 22:25 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-15 12:02 +1300
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 23:27 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-15 19:06 +1300
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-15 10:45 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-15 13:28 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-15 12:58 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-15 15:39 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-15 15:04 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-15 12:19 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-15 09:46 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-15 18:59 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-16 11:59 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-16 09:02 +1300
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-15 11:17 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-11-15 21:38 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-14 11:44 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-14 18:11 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-14 13:33 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-15 01:49 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-11-14 10:38 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-14 12:56 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-14 13:50 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-14 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-14 15:25 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-11-14 11:03 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-14 16:08 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-15 11:30 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-15 11:17 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-15 17:35 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-15 17:39 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-15 23:19 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-15 18:53 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-15 19:08 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-16 01:30 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-16 07:39 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-16 07:37 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-15 09:46 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-15 12:38 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-15 23:07 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 16:54 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-11-28 20:17 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-29 06:08 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 20:45 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-14 10:10 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 20:19 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-12 23:57 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-13 10:34 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-13 23:57 -0500
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-11-13 23:00 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ike Naar <ike@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2019-11-14 07:53 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2019-11-14 02:34 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 10:01 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 11:27 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 12:46 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 12:01 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 14:05 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-11-12 18:34 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-12 19:01 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 17:08 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 17:06 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 19:11 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-15 05:15 +1300
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 18:13 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 20:16 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 20:03 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-15 04:51 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-14 10:15 -0800
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 20:52 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-13 10:57 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-13 23:23 +1300
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-13 11:53 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-13 14:02 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-13 13:40 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-13 17:01 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-13 16:28 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-13 22:49 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-13 22:38 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-13 23:06 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 10:10 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 10:42 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 12:53 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 12:28 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-14 14:21 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-14 14:28 +0000
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 15:38 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:37 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-14 13:38 +0100
Re: OT: improve this simple algorithm? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-11-13 05:21 -0800
csiph-web