In which version of C was the problem of = and == solved?
Assignment operator in C
In which version of C was the problem of = and == solved?
You don't need to spam up our board with pointless and naïve questions. Are you trying to take a test or something?
And what are you even talking about? There was never a problem with = and ==.
What is your question specifically?
Sorry I misread the criticism section of C in wikipedia so the misconception.
Look, I won't criticize you. Just please rephrase your question as it doesn't make any sense now.
It is not version of C - it your writing styleOriginally Posted by SrikanthSuresh
If you always write the condition in form
then compiler will give you error when you by mistake miss the = charCode:if(0 == i)
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
Except that you cannot always write the condition in that way since you may be comparing two non-const lvalues... unless you're really suggesting always ensuring that the left hand side is an rvalue or non-const lvalue, but if you can always remember that, then you can always remember not to use = when you mean ==.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
or you can remember to use compiler which actually warns about using assigning operator inside if
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
It becomes a problem when I actually want to do an assignment and a boolean check at the same time. I wouldn't want future code maintainers to panic when those warnings pop up... possibly causing them to think I didn't know what I was doing.
O_o
(1): I submit that if your "maintainers" don't understand the definition of "false positive" they shouldn't be maintaining anything.
(2): If your company standard has such extremes as "no warnings allowed even false positives" you shouldn't be combining assignment with the check in the first place.
Soma
Heh, I was waiting for someone to tell me I was just coding wrong. Something likeCompiler would whine telling me to dumb down my code. Oh well.Code:if (fp = fopen(...)) { /* do good stuff since file open succeeded */ }
The warning can usually be eliminated there by doing:Note that the extra brackets there are actually crucial to preventing the warning.Code:if ((fp = fopen(...)) != NULL) {
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
