Re: Operator precedence: am I missing something?
- From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:37:00 +0200
Jun Woong writes:
Kevin D. Quitt <KQu...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why does the Standard not have an explicit table that shows the precedence
of operators? A web search provides numerous tables, mostly but not
entirely in agreement with one another.
Or am I missing something obvious?
The precedence table does not convey all information that the
grammar does. Open one of your C books and see whether the cast
operator has lower precedence than the unary sizeof, + and -
operators or has the same one as they do: (...)
What of it? So all the operators should not be stuffed into a single
precedence table, since that too easily gets misleading. And additional
info like associativity is needed too. On the other hand, a few partial
precedence tables would still be quite useful. But on the gripping
hand, if you are looking for a good C reference that's what C reference
books are for, not standards.
--
Regards,
Hallvard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Operator precedence: am I missing something?
- From: Jun Woong
- Re: Operator precedence: am I missing something?
- References:
- Operator precedence: am I missing something?
- From: Kevin D . Quitt
- Re: Operator precedence: am I missing something?
- From: Jun Woong
- Operator precedence: am I missing something?
- Prev by Date: Re: Initializing _Bool
- Next by Date: Re: Initializing _Bool
- Previous by thread: Re: Operator precedence: am I missing something?
- Next by thread: Re: Operator precedence: am I missing something?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|