NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c-part1/6967

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 1.8 KB | 50 lines

Path: sun001.spd.dsccc.com!spd!jmccarty
From: [e-mail] (Mike McCarty)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C constant expression declarations
Date: 16 Feb 1996 19:56:26 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA
Message-ID: <4g2nha$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aplo139.spd.dsccc.com

In article <[e-mail]>,
Kazimir Kylheku <[e-mail]> wrote:
)In article <[e-mail]>, J.R. Stoner <[e-mail]> wrote:
)>This is a query (I have checked the FAQ) into something that strikes me
)>as a dumbfoundedly stupid issue, but I will ask it anyway :)
)>
)>Normally, I will do things such as:
)>
)> #define EXPR1   1
)> #define EXPR2   2
)>
)>...and so on.  Lately, I have been observing in code from other people
)>equivalent declarations such as:
)>
)> #define EXPR1   (1)
)> #define EXPR2   (2)
)
)This does not buy you anything at all, since the thing you are bracketing
)has only one constituent: it's not a compound expression.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. It buys two very important
things, to wit:

    it builds a good habit of putting parens in, so that when they
        are needed they don't inadvertently get left out

    it builds consistency, so that one gets a feeling that
        "something may be wrong here" when inspecting code for
        errors

I believe that (for the sake of creating and maintaining correct
programs) these are well worth the extra discipline (at first) and
compilation time for the cases where the parens are not strictly needed.

Mike
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}

I don't speak for DSC.         <- They make me say that.