On 16 May 2007, at 15:14, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Actually, I was taught when learning Java, and assumed (yes, I
know) it
might have been the case for C. Anyway, please don't forget the other
comments :-) This one was trivial ;-)
Well - just so you know - it's as wrong for Java as it is for
On 16 May 2007, at 15:20, Andy Armstrong wrote:
More pedantically bitwise & and | are guaranteed to evaluate both
arguments.
And as you say they don't constitute a sequence point[1] so the order
of evaluation of the arguments is undefined.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_point
-
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> hi,
> I've been studying the code in the fotw: debug.c and below are my comments,
> if they're of any interest. Feel free to neglect, I'm kinda picky.
>
> 1.
>while (*command && (isalnum((int) *command) || *command == ',' ||
>*command == ']
On 16 May 2007, at 15:11, jerry gay wrote:
it's bitwise AND where order isn't guaranteed--i'm pretty sure that's
the point of confusion.
More pedantically bitwise & and | are guaranteed to evaluate both
arguments.
Logical && and || are guaranteed to short circuit completely reliably.
--
An
On 5/16/07, Andrew Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
> hi,
> I've been studying the code in the fotw: debug.c and below are my comments,
> if they're of any interest. Feel free to neglect, I'm kinda picky.
>
> 1.
>while (*command && (isalnum((int
On 5/16/07, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/16/07, Andrew Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
>
> > hi,
> > I've been studying the code in the fotw: debug.c and below are my
comments,
> > if they're of any interest. Feel free to neglect, I'
hi,
I've been studying the code in the fotw: debug.c and below are my comments,
if they're of any interest. Feel free to neglect, I'm kinda picky.
1.
while (*command && (isalnum((int) *command) || *command == ',' ||
*command == ']'))
I'm not 100% sure, but:
I've always been taught that
