On 2026-05-29 18:12, Bart wrote:You actually said this:On 29/05/2026 16:59, Scott Lurndal wrote:I think it's the "someone is wrong on the internet" syndrome.[*]Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:On 2026-05-29 15:22, Bart wrote:>>>
I noticed that you didn't answer my questions.
Yes, because, as experience shows, it's obviously a waste of time!
>
Okay, I'll bite. - I'll go waste my time again and comment on your
other post where you said you are confused about these cases...
Why bother? C isn't ever going to change operator precedence
just to make Bart happy.
My apologies. :-)
>You said in your previous post that I would have said that they
It would make me happy just for someone to admit there are problems. JP always says they are perfect but for one little thing.
are perfect. And now you are even saying that I'd always say that.
Please stop that!
Just for the record...
What I would say is that operator precedences are in "C"
"sensibly and appropriately defined, modulo the bit-ops".
> (The point is that - with the exception of & ^ | - the ranking
> makes perfectly sense and should be easily usable without doubt
> by a concept-knowing programmer."
(14-May-2026 0159 BST.)
And today:
> Unsurprisingly; since exactly *that* was the obvious (and single)
> issue with C's precedence definitions.
So you do seem to have a consistent view that there is only one thing wrong with C operator precedence.
However, in that same 14-May post was this exchange:
Dan Cross:
>> Programmers _should_ absolutely learn the rules. But in C,
>> there are many of them, and some of them are deceptively subtle.
JP:
> We agreed.
So, a hint of something else that is amiss? You just seem reluctant to say it yourself, but will disagree with me when I suggest it, while at the same time agree when somebody else does so.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.