Re: this girl calls c ugly

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c  
Sujet : Re: this girl calls c ugly
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 31. May 2026, 12:18:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <10vh5f0$1g1ke$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 31/05/2026 12:10, Bart wrote:
On 31/05/2026 10:49, David Brown wrote:
On 31/05/2026 10:12, Richard Harnden wrote:
On 31/05/2026 00:43, Keith Thompson wrote:
C's operator precedence rules are complicated and arguably flawed.
They could have been defined differently.  A simpler set of rules,
with fewer levels,*might* have been better.  I don't have any
concrete suggestions -- nor do I have any strong preferences.
I accept C's rules as they are.  I would accept them if they had
been defined differently.
>
Can't the compiler easily remove any parens that aren't necessary?
So - just write complex expressions in a way that a human can most easily understand, it makes your intention clear and probable doesn't increase the size of the executable.
>
>
>
Of course.  Parentheses do not affect the generated code unless they affect the semantics of the expression.  (Some people think parentheses affect the order of evaluation,
 They can do if they make a expression be parsed differently.
As I said, they "do not affect the generated code unless they affect the semantics of the expression."  Obviously that only applies to extra parentheses.  If that's what you mean by "parsed differently", then we agree - clearly "(a + b) * c" gives different code from "a + (b * c)".
But you might consider "(a + b) + c" to be "parsed differently" than "a + (b + c)", because of how a particular compiler implements its parser. It's possible that this results in different code for a particular compiler, but there is no difference in the meaning for the C language.
I perhaps expressed it poorly when I said extra parentheses "do not" affect the generated code - extra parentheses do not change the meaning of the C code, and so compilers don't have to consider them in any way (and optimising compilers generally don't).  But a compiler is, of course, free to be influenced by them and generate code that varies with extra parentheses, as long as the final results match those required by the standard.

Do you have an example where they make no difference but people might think they do?
 
People might think they affect the order of evaluation, such as when you have function calls :
u = foo(x) + (foo(y) + foo(z));
Some people might think the use of parentheses means that "foo(y)" and "foo(z)" are called before "foo(x)", when the order of all these calls (and the additions) is unspecified.  (Again, a given compiler might be influenced by the parentheses, but the language does not require it.)

Date Sujet#  Auteur
27 May 26 * this girl calls c ugly371fir
27 May 26 `* Re: this girl calls c ugly370fir
28 May 26  `* Re: this girl calls c ugly369BGB
28 May 26   +* Re: this girl calls c ugly5Lawrence D’Oliveiro
28 May 26   i+* Re: this girl calls c ugly3BGB
29 May 26   ii`* Re: this girl calls c ugly2Lawrence D’Oliveiro
29 May 26   ii `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1BGB
28 May 26   i`- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Bonita Montero
28 May 26   +* Re: this girl calls c ugly19Janis Papanagnou
28 May 26   i+* Re: this girl calls c ugly15BGB
29 May 26   ii+- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Lawrence D’Oliveiro
29 May 26   ii`* Re: this girl calls c ugly13Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26   ii `* Re: this girl calls c ugly12BGB
29 May 26   ii  +* Re: this girl calls c ugly9David Brown
29 May 26   ii  i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly8BGB
30 May 26   ii  i `* Re: this girl calls c ugly7David Brown
30 May 26   ii  i  +* Re: this girl calls c ugly2Janis Papanagnou
30 May 26   ii  i  i`- Re: this girl calls c ugly1David Brown
30 May 26   ii  i  `* Re: this girl calls c ugly4BGB
31 May 26   ii  i   `* Re: this girl calls c ugly3David Brown
31 May 26   ii  i    `* Re: this girl calls c ugly2BGB
31 May 26   ii  i     `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1David Brown
29 May 26   ii  +- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Janis Papanagnou
30 May 26   ii  `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Lawrence D’Oliveiro
28 May 26   i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly3Chris M. Thomasson
29 May 26   i `* Re: this girl calls c ugly2Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26   i  `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Chris M. Thomasson
28 May 26   `* Re: this girl calls c ugly344fir
28 May 26    `* Re: this girl calls c ugly343BGB
29 May 26     +* Re: this girl calls c ugly336Lawrence D’Oliveiro
29 May 26     i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly335Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26     i `* Re: this girl calls c ugly334Bart
29 May 26     i  +* Re: this girl calls c ugly318Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26     i  i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly317Bart
29 May 26     i  i +* Re: this girl calls c ugly9Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26     i  i i+* Re: this girl calls c ugly2Bart
29 May 26     i  i ii`- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26     i  i i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly6Bart
29 May 26     i  i i +* Re: this girl calls c ugly4Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26     i  i i i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly3Bart
29 May 26     i  i i i `* Re: this girl calls c ugly2Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26     i  i i i  `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Bart
29 May 26     i  i i `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Keith Thompson
29 May 26     i  i `* Re: this girl calls c ugly307tTh
29 May 26     i  i  `* Re: this girl calls c ugly306Bart
29 May 26     i  i   +* Re: this girl calls c ugly304Keith Thompson
29 May 26     i  i   i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly303Bart
29 May 26     i  i   i +- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Janis Papanagnou
29 May 26     i  i   i `* Re: this girl calls c ugly301Keith Thompson
29 May 26     i  i   i  `* Re: this girl calls c ugly300Bart
29 May 26     i  i   i   +* Re: this girl calls c ugly5Keith Thompson
30 May 26     i  i   i   i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly4James Kuyper
30 May 26     i  i   i   i `* Re: this girl calls c ugly3Bart
30 May 26     i  i   i   i  `* Re: this girl calls c ugly2Keith Thompson
30 May 26     i  i   i   i   `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Bart
30 May 26     i  i   i   `* Re: this girl calls c ugly294Dan Cross
30 May 26     i  i   i    +* Re: this girl calls c ugly290Bart
31 May 26     i  i   i    i+* Re: this girl calls c ugly288Keith Thompson
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii+* Re: this girl calls c ugly5Janis Papanagnou
31 May 26     i  i   i    iii+* Re: this girl calls c ugly2Keith Thompson
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    iiii`- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Janis Papanagnou
31 May 26     i  i   i    iii`* Re: this girl calls c ugly2David Brown
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    iii `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Janis Papanagnou
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii`* Re: this girl calls c ugly282Richard Harnden
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii +* Re: this girl calls c ugly175David Brown
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii i+* Re: this girl calls c ugly172Bart
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii ii+* Re: this girl calls c ugly146David Brown
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii iii`* Re: this girl calls c ugly145James Kuyper
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii iii `* Re: this girl calls c ugly144David Brown
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii iii  +* Re: this girl calls c ugly4James Kuyper
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii iii  i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly3David Brown
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii iii  i `* Re: this girl calls c ugly2James Kuyper
1 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii  i  `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1David Brown
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii iii  `* Re: this girl calls c ugly139Keith Thompson
1 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   +* Re: this girl calls c ugly2David Brown
1 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   i`- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Keith Thompson
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   +* Re: this girl calls c ugly135Janis Papanagnou
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   i+- Re: this girl calls c ugly1James Kuyper
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   i+* Constants and undefined behavior88Tim Rentsch
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii`* Re: Constants and undefined behavior87Dan Cross
4 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii `* Re: Constants and undefined behavior86Tim Rentsch
4 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii  `* Re: Constants and undefined behavior85Dan Cross
4 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   +* Re: Constants and undefined behavior35Keith Thompson
5 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   i+* Re: Constants and undefined behavior32Dan Cross
5 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   ii+* Re: Constants and undefined behavior28Keith Thompson
6 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iii+* Re: Constants and undefined behavior23Dan Cross
6 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii`* Re: Constants and undefined behavior22Keith Thompson
8 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii `* Re: Constants and undefined behavior21Dan Cross
8 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii  +* Re: Constants and undefined behavior5Keith Thompson
9 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii  i`* Re: Constants and undefined behavior4Dan Cross
9 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii  i `* Re: Constants and undefined behavior3Keith Thompson
9 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii  i  `* Re: Constants and undefined behavior2Dan Cross
9 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii  i   `- Re: Constants and undefined behavior1Keith Thompson
9 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii  `* Re: Constants and undefined behavior15Waldek Hebisch
9 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii   +* Re: Constants and undefined behavior3James Kuyper
10 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii   i`* Re: Constants and undefined behavior2Keith Thompson
10 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii   i `- Re: Constants and undefined behavior1Dan Cross
11 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii   +* Re: Constants and undefined behavior9Janis Papanagnou
11 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii   i+* Re: Constants and undefined behavior2Dan Cross
11 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii   ii`- Re: Constants and undefined behavior1Janis Papanagnou
11 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii   i`* Re: Constants and undefined behavior6Waldek Hebisch
21 Jun22:26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iiii   `* Re: Constants and undefined behavior2Tim Rentsch
6 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   iii`* Re: Constants and undefined behavior4Tim Rentsch
5 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   ii`* Re: Constants and undefined behavior3Janis Papanagnou
7 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   i`* Re: Constants and undefined behavior2Tim Rentsch
9 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   ii   `* Re: Constants and undefined behavior49Tim Rentsch
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly45Keith Thompson
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii iii   `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Chris M. Thomasson
2 Jun 26     i  i   i    ii ii`* Re: this girl calls c ugly25Dan Cross
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii i`* Re: this girl calls c ugly2James Kuyper
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii +* Re: this girl calls c ugly2Keith Thompson
31 May 26     i  i   i    ii `* Re: this girl calls c ugly104Tim Rentsch
31 May 26     i  i   i    i`- Re: this girl calls c ugly1Dan Cross
1 Jun 26     i  i   i    `* Re: this girl calls c ugly3Tim Rentsch
30 May 26     i  i   `- Re: this girl calls c ugly1David Brown
29 May 26     i  +* Re: this girl calls c ugly6Janis Papanagnou
30 May 26     i  `* Re: this girl calls c ugly9Lawrence D’Oliveiro
29 May 26     `* Re: this girl calls c ugly6Bonita Montero

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal