Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!HARGED%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
From: HARGED%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: unary +
Message-ID: <2323@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 2-Apr-86 18:13:03 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2323
Posted: Wed Apr  2 18:13:03 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Apr-86 07:17:40 EST
Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
Lines: 22

> As has been mentioned already, the unary + operator acts a a signal to any
> optimizer to not migrate things from below the node to above it and
> visa-versa.

Why do you want to embed a compiler directive in the middle of an expression?
Particularly when it looks like it has some arithmetic meaning (even though
it doesn't).

Folks, no two ways about it: "a + +(b + c)" looks very strange (it looks like 
a typographical error), particularly when it is *required* to accomplish what 
most people intuitively assume "a + (b + c)" will accomplish. From a human
factors standpoint, this proposal is a disaster. If adopted, it will become a
textbook example of an anti-intuitive language construct. While it is important
that compilers generate maximally optimized machine code, it is more important
that humans be able to read and understand the source code. This one has the
potential to introduce some truly subtle bugs ("Oh ! There's supposed to be a
space between the two plus-signs !"), as well as sow confusion among user's who
are not intimately familiar with code generation.

Richard Hargrove
Texas Instruments
harged%ti-eg@csnet-relay