In article <10vd1tu$ekvl$1@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:My question is actually independent of C or its history.On 29/05/2026 21:56, Keith Thompson wrote:To clarify: the question is, what is the point of those levels?[snip]>
Upthread, you asked a question:
>
And then the point becomes, if you always add the parentheses, what
was the point of having that particular precedence level?
>
You've made it clear that you were never interested in an answer.
You said this:
>
"You're asking why C is designed the way it is. We could waste a
great deal of time and effort answering that for you. There are
numerous documents about the design and history of C, and of
its ancestor languages. I could provide you with links."
>
Actually I'm not asking why C is like that. We're already there.
>
I'm saying that there is no value in those extra levels, some people
think is, and I'm arging about that. I was replying to tTh.
>
As for my question, what /is/ the point? I'm still waiting!
How is that different from asking "why C is like that"?
I accept those levels exist. I was asking do they currently serve a useful purpose.
If not, people can choose to ignore those them when writing C code, for example like this where all () are technically superfluous:
crcu32 = (crcu32 >> 4) ^ s_crc32[(crcu32 & 0xF) ^ (b & 0xF)];
And they can choose to not adopt them when devising new languages, however many still do faithfully recreate the same pattern, with a few notable exceptions such as Go lang.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.