Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #162629
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators |
| Date | 2021-09-06 09:15 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <sh4f6i$bh7$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <sh2vvh$oir$1@dont-email.me> <sh38om$1nc6m$1@news.xmission.com> <Q_aZI.46522$F26.22819@fx44.iad> <sh3io6$pfh$1@dont-email.me> |
On 06/09/2021 01:09, Bart wrote: > On 05/09/2021 22:52, Richard Damon wrote: > >> Also, it puts less operators at any give level of the grammer which >> might be useful. You end up with more levels of grammer, but each one is >> simpler. I think that is a very likely reason. > > I dispute it's that useful; but it is certainly harder to remember all > the different levels. You can also can't assume that everyone will know > them as well as you. You don't need to remember all the different levels. You need to remember the common ones, and they are all pretty obvious - no one is going to be in doubt about the meaning of "a = b * c + d;". Beyond that, you can always add parenthesis or split the expression into sub-expressions - whatever makes the code clearer and more maintainable. You might need to be able to understand other people's code written with fewer parenthesis than you might personally like, but usually it's clear what they meant unless they were deliberately writing smart-arse code.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 18:49 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-05 13:11 -0700
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 21:12 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-06 09:09 +0200
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-09-05 20:19 +0000
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 17:52 -0400
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-06 00:09 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-06 09:15 +0200
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-06 11:10 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-06 13:01 +0200
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 04:20 -0700
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 09:27 -0500
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-09-08 00:20 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-09-08 14:18 -0500
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 02:01 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 09:39 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 10:46 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 10:09 -0400
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 16:05 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 09:27 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 12:18 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-06 13:44 +0200
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 13:38 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-06 18:12 +0200
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators tth <tth@none.invalid> - 2021-09-06 18:20 +0200
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-09-06 23:40 +0200
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 17:20 -0700
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 13:44 +0100
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 17:23 -0700
Re: C precedence - relative comparisons before equality operators James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-09-06 23:07 -0400
csiph-web