• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: C question for you old guys ;-)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: C question for you old guys ;-)


  • Subject: Re: C question for you old guys ;-)
  • From: Oscar Morales Vivó <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:06:53 +0200

The fact of the matter is that I always use those keywords, as they make my code far more readable. I never had trouble with '=' vs '==', but I was bitten once too many by the '&' vs '&&' bug. Nowadays I just keep '&' with a single meaning (address of) which is better for everyone. There's already too many overloaded symbols in C as it is (obviously C++ can make the problem far worse).

You might not think it does make it more readable (graphics vs. text, the same reason braces are more readable than begin-end pairs), but syntax coloring makes the opposite point true. I find it far easier to follow a conditional expression when the logical operators are all marked blue.

Consequently I really miss an 'equals'/'eq' whatever keyword.

But I guess all this thread boils down to the fact that Kernighan & Ritchie were too cheap to use ':=' as the assignment operator...

BTW, hasn't C99 made all those (and/or/bitand/not_eq...) into keywords?


On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 05:18 Europe/Madrid, Andrew Pinski wrote:

On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 20:32 US/Eastern, Matthew Toia wrote:

#define and &&
#define or ||
#define not !

are actually C++ standard keywords now. (i.e. can be used without any
macros)

g++ doesn't seem to agree with you, though it makes _some_ sense.


Which version, 3.0 included them as keywords.

In fact it was added by this patch:
Thu Nov 17 15:30:50 1994 Mike Stump <email@hidden>

* gxx.gperf, hash.h, lex.c (init_lex, real_yylex), parse.y: Add new
ANSI keywords and, and_eq, bitand, bitor, explicit, namespace, not,
not_eq, or, or_eq, typename, using, xor, xor_eq to g++. Still need
to add support for explicit, namespace, typename, and using, support
for the rest is already in.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.



/*
Oscar Morales Vivs

Eternal Computer Science Student. Master of C++ Templates. Cocoa Nut. Computer Graphics Illuminati. UI Guru in Training. Dabbler in all things CS and most which are not.

Web stuff: http://homepage.mac.com/oscarmv/index.html
*/
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

References: 
 >Re: C question for you old guys ;-) (From: Andrew Pinski <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: Re: Re: [OT] [OT] [OT] [OT] Mouse buttons (was Re: troubling article)
  • Next by Date: Re: installer application ?
  • Previous by thread: Re: C question for you old guys ;-)
  • Next by thread: Keywords - was Re: C question for you old guys ;-)
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread