Comment by 1718627440
4 days ago
> The C folks should just make it illegal.
I often have code, which looks like this:
for (ptr = start; random_condition (*ptr); ptr = ptr->next);
for (ptr = ptr->next; other_condition (*ptr); ptr = ptr->prev);
... [do action]
for (ptr = end; to_be_deleted (*ptr) && (delete (ptr), TRUE); ptr = ptr->prev);
I wouldn't be happy about your policy.
> I've also fixed printf in D so that [...] gives an error message
Just last week I had the case that the C compiler complained, I should use %lld for long long, but the printf implementation shipped with the compiler doesn't support that. Thus, using %ld, even if undefined behaviour was the correct action. I wouldn't like my language making up more work for me for no reason.
Rewrite as:
Then anyone reading your code will know the empty loop was intentional. BTW, many C compilers warn about the ; on a for loop.
Have you ever discovered this bug:
It's a hard one to see in a code review. Yes, that's also disallowed in D.
> I should use %lld for long long, but the printf implementation shipped with the compiler doesn't support that.
Weird that your compiler would support long long, but with a broken Standard library. I don't see that as a feature. You can always cast the argument to long, and at least you won't get undefined behavior.
> Rewrite as:
Could do that I just don't like the look. :-)
> Have you ever discovered this bug:
Actually no, because the coding style I use either puts it on a single line or with braces. I never indent just a single line.
So:
or:
> Weird that your compiler would support long long, but with a broken Standard library.
Yeah, for your information it was GCC combined with newlib for arm-none-eabi shipped with Debian/MS Windows.
> So or
Those are not what I was mentioning. It was the use of ; immediately following for(). No loop body.
1 reply →