Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #826Re: NOT Educating FORTRAN programmers to use C
From: Jim Giles
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1990 02:09
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1990 02:09
22 lines
1598 bytes
1598 bytes
From article <15706@haddock.ima.isc.com>, by karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer): > "Fixed in ANSI C." Also, you're claiming that all implementations of Fortran, > Pascal, etc. inhibit optimization around parentheses. I'm not convinced that > this has been true in practice. If any implementation reorders expressions by ignoring parenthesis, it is not standard conforming. The vendor of such a compiler might find business falling off - or even law suits (if they claim conformance). Certainly they should expect complaints. In any case, being non-standard makes the premise of your statement invalid: if they aren't standard (at least as far as anyone knows), then they aren't implementations of the respective language. As for expression ordering being "Fixed in ANSI C", I'd like to know _HOW_. I don't have a final copy of the standard, so I'm a little behind about what it finally contained. There was some talk of munging up the plus (+) operator for expression ordering. I _HOPE_ they didn't settle on this particular solution. Parenthesis is the best solution I've seen implemented (or proposed) in any language so far. Further, most programmers (non-C) expect parenthesis to have this function. J. Giles
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<14204@lambda.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!lambda!jlgReferences:
<15706@haddock.ima.isc.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!lambda!jlg From: jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: NOT Educating FORTRAN programmers to use C Message-ID: <14204@lambda.UUCP> Date: 23 Jan 90 02:09:20 GMT References: <15706@haddock.ima.isc.com> Lines: 22