On 29/05/2026 16:15, Janis Papanagnou wrote:(My reply on your previous examples just posted.)On 2026-05-29 15:22, Bart wrote:On 29/05/2026 13:46, Janis Papanagnou wrote:[...]On 2026-05-29 13:19, Bart wrote:On 29/05/2026 09:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote:On 2026-05-29 01:54, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:On Thu, 28 May 2026 14:07:45 -0500, BGB wrote:>[...]>
>
The "confusions" you listed - not worth quoting - are your personal
problem. The precedence of assignments and related operations and
their evaluation order are clear, reasonable, and they can be found
that way in many existing languages. (Some of your listed "problems"
have been answered here already in the past - I wonder whether it's
worth replying to you if you don't learn from the answers. You seem
to have fun wasting everyone's time.)
>
[...]
I noticed that you didn't answer my questions.
Yes, because, as experience shows, it's obviously a waste of time!
It can go both ways.It is true and acknowledged even by the designers of the C-language
You always exasperatingly insist that there is only one thing wrong with C's precedence rules, and I think you said once that they are are otherwise perfect.
that there's a misplaced group in the table; the three bit-ops.
I don't think that "perfect" is a fitting word, but it's otherwise
(modulo bit-ops) surely an *appropriate* sensible choice they made.
The less important options might be defined in one way or another;
and various language designers have taken different ways how many
groups they define, or how boolean and numeric operators relate in
precedence, for example.
And yet there endless examples on forums of people saying they are confusing.Your endless complaint-tirades may have made me miss these dubious
"endless examples on forums of people saying they are confusing".
If you are active on these forums I'd at least not be astonished
if you'd contributed to anyone's confusion given how you behave
here even on simple and clear facts about "C".
Janis
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.