Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!gatech!ulysses!hector!jss
From: jss@hector.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Two replacements for unary +
Message-ID: <2419@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: Sat, 18-Apr-87 17:05:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.2419
Posted: Sat Apr 18 17:05:17 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Apr-87 07:38:29 EST
References: <489@danews.ATT.COM>
Sender: daemon@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: jss@hector (Jerry Schwarz)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 26

In article <489@danews.ATT.COM> lvc@danews.UUCP writes:
>
>I am very dissatisfied with unary plus in the ANSI C.

People keep saying this, but it is unclear whether they don't like
having unary plus or they don't like using it for controlling order
of evaluation.

As has been pointed out before, unary plus was added for other
reasons (mainly that atoi accepts "+1", but "x= +1" was not legal.)

Having made the decision to add unary plus anyway, it was decided to
make it do double duty.  While other alternatives may have virtues,
they all have the significant drawback that they require further
additions to the grammar, and gain no added functionality.

I would also point out that compiler options and the meaning
of specific #pragmas are outside the scope of the standard.

(As a sociological aside, I think we are seeing the "Bicycle Shed
Phenomena".  The tendency noted by "Parkinson" for discussions
to focus on modest issues that are easy to understand rather
than big issues which aren't.)

Jerry Schwarz
[ not a member of the ANSI Comittee ]