Re: Sequence Point before actual function call

Phil Carmody said:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Phil Carmody said:

gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gordon Burditt) writes:

<snip>

The value returned by j++ is the value of j before the increment

The first time grates.

[operator 'returning' a value]

<snip>

But two on one line has pushed me over the edge.

Your fall is noted, but it was a wasted gesture. On at least two
occasions, even the Standard itself uses the word "return" to describe
the yielding of a value by an operator.

If my pdf viewer's search function is working correctly, I
couldn't find any in n1256.

Then either your search function is not working correctly or those
references have been removed. Nevertheless, they were certainly there in
C89 and they were certainly there in C99 - so that usage of the
terminology has been around for a very long time, whether or not it
remains there at the present moment.

I looked particularly at section
6.5 Expressions, and it seems that 'result' is used practically
everywhere, with not a 'return' to be seen outside a function-
call context. Would you care to pinpoint these usages to slightly
more accurate resolution than 500+-pages?

Here's some context:

C89: 3.3 Expressions
"These operators return values that depend on the internal representations
of integers, and thus have implementation-defined aspects for signed
types."

C99: 6.5 Expressions
"These operators return values that depend on the internal representations
of integers, and have implementation-defined and undefined aspects for
signed types."

C99: 6.5.3.1 "The unary & operator returns the address of its operand."

This phrase is not present, as far as I can tell, in C89, but was
introduced in C99.

If such terminology is acceptable to ISO, I
don't see why clc should have a problem with it.

Do you personally like the usage? Does anyone?

I don't mind either way. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but to object
to it smacks of silliness. Terminology is important, but it's hardly so
important as to push you over any edges - and even if the ISO folks no
longer use the term in that way, they used it that way in the Standard for
well over a decade, and (appear) even to have *expanded* its use in the
original ratified version of C99, so it's not as if it's self-evidently
wrong. Dogma has its place, but this isn't that place.

<nonsense snipped>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.

Quantcast