On 2026-05-29 20:09, Bart wrote:English is my second language, technically.You actually said this:You continue your trollish stance to cherry-pick words without
understanding or trying to understand what's been expressed.
The insight appears to me that you're taking communication in a
similar way as you "design" your languages; focusing on personal
*syntax* preferences instead of the more important *semantics*.
Despite we're talking in your native language
(and not mine) youIt's paraphrasing. Here is your quote again:
obvious completely miss or deliberately ignore that there's a
difference between "it makes perfectly sense" and "it's perfect".
(I said the former, you put the latter in my mouth.
> (The point is that - with the exception of & ^ | - the ranking
> makes perfect[ly] sense and should be easily usable without doubt
> by a concept-knowing programmer."
I've isolated the 'ly' as that is incorrect grammar and have ignored it.
I don't know what impression someone can take from this other than you think it's all dandy apart from that one exception.
So, what am I missing? Did you mean the rest is all fine, considering this is C, but it is not perfect?
In that case, what /would/ be perfect in your view? Assume a fantasy language where anything is possible.
>> What I would say is that operator precedences are in "C"OK, so why don't you list all the things you think are amiss with C operator precedences. Apart from that exception.
>> "sensibly and appropriately defined, modulo the bit-ops".
you're still playing your stupid game; you ignored that. I suggest
to try to map this statement to either of the above two statements,
the one I said and the one you (wrongly) attributed, and see which
one fits. (Hint: the former.)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.