Sujet : Re: while(T[l]<p & l<=r)
De : fir (at) *nospam* grunge.pl (fir)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 28. Mar 2024, 17:28:41
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <uu45rq$3bcok$1@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24
Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 28.03.2024 13:18, fir wrote:
Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 27.03.2024 12:35, fir wrote:
tell me, is while(T[l]<p & l<=r) the same as while((T[l]<p)&&(l<=r))
>
[...] If
you don't want to operate on bits but want to express a boolean
conjunction you should use '&&', though.
>
[...]
>
hovever i wopuld disagre to use "&&" instead "&" then
&& look much worse
>
(Well, I think that '+' looks much worse than '*', but in
math expressions I use the _appropriate_ operator anyway.)
>
Mind that '&' is *not* a syntactical variant of '&&'...
>
and probably & has no real disadvantages
>
it is different to '&&', it has another semantic! As said,
it's just by context-coincidence that it's equivalent _here_.
>
(i mean no
bigger that the intention that && should be use for boolean - which
probably comes from later c not oryginal young c
>
Original K&R C had '&' for bit-operations and '&&' for boolean
operations.
>
While, say, 'x<y & u<v' works effectively as 'x<y && u<v' (as
said, because of the evaluations to 0 and 1, general boolean
predicates, like 'p() & q()' is not the same as 'p() && q()',
even if you can use 'p()' and 'q()' in 'if'-conditions as per
the C semantics of booleans (or integers used as booleans).
>
You often see code like,say, 'x=length(s); y=length(t);' and
compare non-emptiness of the strings with 'if (x)' or with
'if (y)'. If you combine that condition by 'if (x & y)' you
will get wrong results, but 'if (x && y)' would be correct.
>
how, if string ate empty then the pionters are nulls to
null&null should work ok imo
'&' is for bit-operations in scalars, '&&' is for booleans
(for logical operations, bool x bool -> bool).
>
>
so i probably plan to stick to &
>
But why stick to a bit-value operator where you want a
boolean logic operator? - You just confuse readers of your
code and unnecessarily introduce error-prone code.
>
(But you can of course do as you like.)
>
Janis
>
becouse this && is ugly i think the addition of && is kinda error
in language