On 02/15/2010 09:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:32:21 -0500, Rainer Deyke <rain...@eldwood.com>
wrote:
Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 02/15/2010 05:33 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
uint a = -1; // error
I can't say I would appreciate having to write
uint a = 0xFFFFFFFF;
or the equivalent for ulong.
uint a = ~0u;
even ~0 works, no need for the u (although it makes things clearer).
Ellery, you didn't read my original post thoroughly, I said this was the
most common case of wanting to use unary negative on an unsigned value,
and it's easily rewritten, with the same number of characters no less.
-Steve
Ohhh! that post! You're right; I missed that part.
Alright, here's something I found myself writing just today or yesterday:
//x,r are long, n is ulong
if(x < 0){
ulong ux = -x;
...
}
I also have
if(r < 0){
return n - (-r) % n;
}
emphasis on ensuring dividend is positive before it gets promoted to
ulong, etc etc, and I do guard that r is not remotely close to
ulong.max/min.
assuming that the return type is long (it isn't, but it might as well
be, since n is always within [2,long.max]) or gets assigned to long or
whatever.
-The bottom one obeys your rules.
-The top one doesn't.
-The bottom one is much less clear than the top.
-Whatever I was trying to prove, I think I just inadvertently
strengthened your argument tenfold.
and no, I expect this doesn't fall within the 99% use case of unary -
