Path: utzoo!censor!isgtec!robert
From: robert@isgtec.uucp (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Constants in conditionals
Message-ID: <858@isgtec.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 91 17:54:27 GMT
References: <9890@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1991Feb18.113919.28217@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@isgtec.UUCP
Reply-To: robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne)
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc. Mississauga Ont. Canada
Lines: 29

datangua@watmath.waterloo.edu (David Tanguay) writes:
> In article <9890@dog.ee.lbl.gov> torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes:
> >Both of these are effectively the same as `if (0)', hence a good compiler
> >should warn about a constant in conditional context [...]
> 
> Oooo I hope not! I occasionally use constants in ifs.
Oooo I hope SO!  I occasionally use constants in ifs...
usually by mistake!   Since it is sort of a stupid thing
to do (why use an "if" when you already know which way you are
going to branch?) I would hope that it would produce a warning.

> "if( PATCH_MODE ) { ... }", where PATCH_MODE is a cpp macro (0 or 1).
> I know I coud use #if (or #ifdef), but I find them too ugly.
Nice attitude towards programming;
"I don't use any language constructs *I* don't find aesthetically pleasing"
I know that any compile dependency, whether for architecture, Unix type,
or to exclude some feature (ie. debugging), will have an
#if something
#endif
associated with it.
(Well, I at least at ISG I know this; now it seems this doesn't
extend to the whole world :-(
> I could also  use an external, but then I don't get
> the dead code elimination.
Oh now I see,  you left the smilee off your article.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...uunet!utai!lsuc!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.uucp