Article View: comp.std.c
Article #977Re: Re: Order of Evaluation (plus ?'s)
From: Walter Murray
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1989 18:42
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1989 18:42
21 lines
1342 bytes
1342 bytes
Doug Gwyn writes: > In article <13871@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> bailey@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU.UUCP (Kirk Bailey) writes: > -I'm curious about the fate of the changed floating point evaluation > -constraints which were a part of some of the intermediate dpANSI "C" documents; > -the idea being that the programmer could be assured of a fixed evaluation > -order without requiring the use of temps. The current doc's I have seem to > -no longer mention this (or the synchronization aspect of unary '+')? > Unary + is no longer the way to do this. Use parentheses instead. There are times when the parentheses aren't even needed. ANSI C guarantees that p = q + r + s; will behave exactly the same as p = (q + r) + s; In this respect a standard-conforming C compiler will actually have less latitude than a FORTRAN compiler when it comes to rearranging expressions. Walter Murray ----------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<12570034@hpclwjm.HP.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclwjm!walterReferences:
<1989Nov18.232326.23711@utzoo.uucp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclwjm!walter From: walter@hpclwjm.HP.COM (Walter Murray) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: Re: Order of Evaluation (plus ?'s) Message-ID: <12570034@hpclwjm.HP.COM> Date: 20 Nov 89 18:42:58 GMT References: <1989Nov18.232326.23711@utzoo.uucp> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Calif. Language Lab Lines: 21