Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: min and max, power, etc: no defined precedence Message-ID: <3522@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 28 Jan 88 00:57:49 GMT References: <11182@brl-adm.ARPA> <2197@haddock.ISC.COM> <2336@haddock.ISC.COM> <3930@hoptoad.uucp> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 23 In article <3930@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > >But if any operators *DO* slip through, I recommend that they have *NO >DEFINED PRECEDENCE*. That's right, we don't need to make C's 11-level >precedence into a 12-level precedence. Force the user to fully >parenthesize any new operator, else the compiler rejects the expression. In other words, you want to make this inconsistent with everything else in C. This would be OK if nothing else had precedence, but not as things stand now. I find expressions with lots of parentheses very hard to read. I really don't want expressions such as 'x = y min z' to be undefined. Another thing: if the honoring of parens goes through, this might lead to some very unoptimized code when min and max are used. I agree with you that no more operators should be added to C. But, if some are added, then they should be assigned a precedence and associativity like everything else. -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_