Related articles |
---|
What precedence for shift-left/shift-right operators? christl@bandos.fmi.uni-passau.de (Timon Christl) (2002-06-28) |
Re: What precedence for shift-left/shift-right operators? trt@cs.duke.edu (Thomas R. Truscott) (2002-07-02) |
Re: What precedence for shift-left/shift-right operators? christl@belinda.fmi.uni-passau.de (Timon Christl) (2002-07-04) |
From: | "Thomas R. Truscott" <trt@cs.duke.edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 2 Jul 2002 01:16:05 -0400 |
Organization: | SAS Institute Inc. |
References: | 02-06-079 |
Keywords: | syntax, design |
Posted-Date: | 02 Jul 2002 01:16:03 EDT |
> ... this means that for example 1+2+3+4<<2 means
> "sum up 1, 2,3 and 4, then shift it left two times". I find the Pascal
> way more intuitive: ...
However the language does it, programmers will occasionally do it wrong.
The gcc compiler issues a helpful warning:
suggest parentheses around + or - inside shift
Another mistake I have seen is "if (x << y)" when the programmer
meant "if (x < y)". (Vanilla gcc does not warn about that.)
One can try to design the language to reduce mistakes.
To avoid the 1+2<<3 problem, require parentheses when mixing operators.
To avoid the if (x << y)" problem, require "boolean" values in the if.
I think language designers (and standards people) prefer this to warnings,
perhaps because they see warnings as vague and "non-normative".
But this is just converting warnings into mandatory errors.
I think mandatory warnings would also be appropriate.
Tom Truscott
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.