Re: Interval Comparisons

On 04.06.2024 11:13, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-04 08:58:53 +0000, David Brown said:

On 04/06/2024 09:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

Would it break backward compatibility for C to add a feature like this
from Python? Namely, the ability to check if a value lies in an
interval:
>
def valid_char(c) :
"is integer c the code for a valid Unicode character." \
" This excludes surrogates."
return \
(
0 <= c <= 0x10FFFF

While nice to have it's just syntactic sugar.

and
not (0xD800 <= c < 0xE000)
)
#end valid_char

>
Do you mean, could C treat "a <= x <= b" as "(a <= x) && (x <= b)"
without breaking existing code?  The answer is no, C treats it as the
expression "(a <= x) <= b".  So you would be changing the meaning of
existing C code.  I think it's fair to say there is likely to be very
little existing correct and working C code that relies on the current
interpretation of such expressions, but the possibility is enough to
rule out such a change ever happening in C.  (And it would also
complicate the grammar a fair bit.)
>
>
<https://c-faq.com/expr/transitivity.html>

 
That does not prevet from doing the same with a different syntax.
The main difference is that in the current C syntax that cannot be
said without mentioning c twice. In the example program C would
require that c is mentioned four times but the shown Python code
only needs it mentioned twice. An ideal syntax woult only mention
it once, perhaps
 
 return c in 0 .. 0xD7FF, 0xE000 .. 0x10FFFF ;

Introducing a new keyword 'in' would also break a lot of code, even
more code than the syntactic change ( . <= . <= . ) mentioned above
in the OP, don't you think?

 
or
 
 return c : [0 .. 0xD800), [0xE000 .. 0x10FFFF] ;
 
or something like that, preferably so that no new reserved word is
needed.

Not worth the hassle, IMO.

Janis