From: Mike McCarty (jmccarty_at_ssd.usa.alcatel.com)
Date: 2001-01-02 22:28:24
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Mirco Miranda wrote:
> Spiro Trikaliotis ha scritto:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > > Or, better,
> > >
> > > while ((c = *value) != 39 && c != 62) {
> > > <stuff>
> > > }
> >
> > Forgive me, but if my memory serves me right, C (at least pre-ANSI) does NOT
> > define the order in which this will be evaluated, so the second part (c!=62)
> > might be evaluated BEFORE the first part with the assignment, in that case,
> > this will NOT evaluate to the expected condition.
>
> scuse me... probably I don't understand very well (I have some problem with english:-()),
> but C work in corto-circuit when it evaluate a boolean expression.
I don't speak Italian, but Spanish is my first language, and it sure
looks like you are trying to say "short-circuit evaluation", which is
correct.
> In this case, it elaborate the first part (the part before the &&) and then (only if this is
> TRUE) it check the second part otherwise (if the first part is FALSE) the result of boolean
> expression is FALSE.
Exactly.
> In all things I prefer to use the "for" instead the "while" when I write a C program...
I prefer to use syntax which reflects the way I think of the solution,
rather than have pet preferred syntax. If I am incrementing a variable,
I use ++, but if I am adding 1 to it, as opposed to incrementing it, I
use += 1. A decent compiler generates the same code in either case.
I like my programs to indicate by their style what they are trying to
accomplish. The more hints I can give myself later, the better I like
it.
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2001-12-14 22:05:37 CET