Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
If I recall correctly, K&R page 101 gives the derivation for the "canonical" string copy statement.
Code:
while(*t++ = *s++);
That's part of why I find c such an uncomfortable language to use. It wants me to think like a compiler. It encourages the use of simple shortcuts that a moderately well-designed compiler should be doing for me. My code is full of explicit tests for zero/nonzero. Although I know I could replace
Code:
if ( my_timer == 0 )
with
and get the same job done, I'm a programmer, and I want to be free to focus on the algorithms and let the compiler care about the details of the bits and bytes. Coding can be, and should be, done by machines.
And don't get me started on how numeric operations are performed using the smallest size that the operands will fit in, leaving me to worry about overflows even if I know the end result of an expression will always fit in the variable I'm putting it in. Oops, too late...
I apologize. It was a late night last night. And I must admit that the tool does get the job done, with little to no fuss, as long as I remember to use it correctly. |
As C/C++ is the language I know best, I don't find a statement like that very confusing. But I agree with you that it should be clear, not "clever." Even though I could read that perfectly, if anyone else looks at my code they might not be able to. It is better to write clear, obvious code, than to have a single line that does the exact same thing.
--EDIT--
P.S. Sorry for double posting there.
