barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (02/24/91)
In article <334@smds.UUCP> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >As far as the ?: syntax is concerned I would like to reiterate the point >that it is dissimilar to other C constructs (other than that it uses still >more special symbols.) All other operators which use punctuation (with >the exception of ->) are either unary or binary operators. What about the function call operator? It takes an arbitrary positive number of parameters. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
john@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb23.215538.10212@Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: }> ... All other operators which use punctuation (with }>the exception of ->) are either unary or binary operators. }What about the function call operator? It takes an arbitrary positive ~~~~~~~~ }number of parameters. Non-negative. ;-) -- John Hascall An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger. Project Vincent Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu Ames, IA 50011 (515) 294-9551
john@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) (02/25/91)
In article <1991Feb24.085322.7800@Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: }In article <1991Feb24.022225.10838@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) writes: }>In article <1991Feb23.215538.10212@Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: }>}What about the function call operator? It takes an arbitrary positive }>}number of parameters. }> Non-negative. ;-) }I stand by my original statement. The function call operator always has at }least one parameter: a function or function pointer. I stand by my original statement. ... but it has ... ... at least one operand: a function pointer. Followups to alt.nomenclature.nit-pick ;-) John -- John Hascall An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger. Project Vincent Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu Ames, IA 50011 (515) 294-9551
rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) (02/25/91)
In article <1991Feb23.215538.10212@Think.COM>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: > In article <334@smds.UUCP> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: > >As far as the ?: syntax is concerned I would like to reiterate the point > >that it is dissimilar to other C constructs (other than that it uses still > >more special symbols.) All other operators which use punctuation (with > >the exception of ->) are either unary or binary operators. > What about the function call operator? It takes an arbitrary positive > number of parameters. To say nothing of the comma operator or the switch statement. :-) However C follows the "one, two, many" approach to terms. You can say: OP TERM --x *x -x &x etc TERM OP x++ x-- etc? TERM OP TERM x+y x-y x*y etc TERM [OP TERM]... f(x,..) x,y... etc It occurs to me, offhand, that post decrement and post increment are the only instances of TERM OP. Does this mean that post incrementing is ugly? :-) -- Richard Harter, Software Maintenance and Development Systems, Inc. Net address: jjmhome!smds!rh Phone: 508-369-7398 US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742 This sentence no verb. This sentence short. This signature done.
kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) (02/26/91)
Re "how many operands", Richard Harter writes:
To say nothing of the comma operator or the switch statement. :-)
Presumably the smiley is because Richard knows full well that both the comma
operator and switch statement have exactly two operands .....
--
Regards, Kers. | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come;
Caravan: | Dreams are always ending far too soon."throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (02/27/91)
> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) > C follows the "one, two, many" approach to terms. You can say: > OP TERM --x *x -x &x etc > TERM OP x++ x-- etc? > TERM OP TERM x+y x-y x*y etc > TERM [OP TERM]... f(x,..) x,y... etc I'm not sure I follow Richard's point. In what relevant way is x+y+z different from x,y,z so as to justify calling the former a case of "two" and the latter a case of "many", based on operator? IMHO, C operators fall into cases one, two, three, and many. The only case of "three" is ?:, and the only case of "many" is f(). > It occurs to me, offhand, that post decrement and post increment are > the only instances of TERM OP. Does this mean that post incrementing is > ugly? :-) Well.... yes, actually. In the sense that it is made available as a special case hack to what (if present at all) ought to be made a general case, similar to the operate-and-assign operators. Compare, for example, C's assignment operator suite along with the pre-and-post-mumble-ment operators to LISP's LET bindings, along with PROG1 and PROGN. (uh... just the idea, and ignore the awful names) In LISP, one can at least synthesize any sort of preincrement or postincrement on the fly, in any valueish context. In C, you can do some of them, and the others must be done by assignment to a temporary, and hence can't be uttered neatly inside expressions. On the other hand, I don't suppose the post-mumble-ment operators are any uglier than quirky special cases in other Algol-related languages, sigh. At least Algol relatives generally don't have the historical naming baggage of LISP relatives. CAR. CDR. PROGN. LET*. Shudder. Wayne Throop ...!mcnc!aurgate!throop