what is the least amount of typing to assign the same value to multiple variables

[vlsidesign]

This syntax does not to work
nl, nt, ns = 0;
The only one that get's initialized is ns.
nl and nt because they don't initialize seem to get some junk from
memory.

I have done these two versions that work:
nl = 0; nt = 0; ns = 0;
nl = nt = ns = 0;

I wonder what is the normal way it is done? In the context below I
wonder how the commas are interpreted as:
nl, nt, ns = 0;

Thanks for any insight.

[furious_joe]

vlsidesign wrote:

This syntax does not to work
nl, nt, ns = 0;
The only one that get's initialized is ns.
nl and nt because they don't initialize seem to get some junk from
memory.

I have done these two versions that work:
nl = 0; nt = 0; ns = 0;
nl = nt = ns = 0;

I wonder what is the normal way it is done? In the context below I
wonder how the commas are interpreted as:
nl, nt, ns = 0;

Thanks for any insight.

Just curious: why does it matter? If you need millions of variables,
just make and array, and initialize it with a loop. or use calloc(),
which works like malloc(), but initializes the condense to 0.
merry Xmas, Furious_joe

[furious_joe]

furious_joe wrote:

Just curious: why does it matter? If you need millions of variables,
just make and array, and initialize it with a loop. or use calloc(),
which works like malloc(), but initializes the condense to 0.
merry Xmas, Furious_joe

on line 3, between "make" and "array" is a reason to proofread, and not
trust a spell checker.

[vlsidesign]

It doesn't, I am a newbie and just wondering. I am going through the
"The C programming language" by Kernighan and Ritchie, the Second
edition -- this book seems very good.

furious_joe wrote:

vlsidesign wrote:

This syntax does not to work
nl, nt, ns = 0;
The only one that get's initialized is ns.
nl and nt because they don't initialize seem to get some junk from
memory.

I have done these two versions that work:
nl = 0; nt = 0; ns = 0;
nl = nt = ns = 0;

I wonder what is the normal way it is done? In the context below I
wonder how the commas are interpreted as:
nl, nt, ns = 0;

Thanks for any insight.

Just curious: why does it matter? If you need millions of variables,
just make and array, and initialize it with a loop. or use calloc(),
which works like malloc(), but initializes the condense to 0.
merry Xmas, Furious_joe

[vlsidesign]

by the way "furious_jo e", thank you for the response, and Merry
Christmas.

furious_joe wrote:

furious_joe wrote:

Just curious: why does it matter? If you need millions of variables,
just make and array, and initialize it with a loop. or use calloc(),
which works like malloc(), but initializes the condense to 0.
merry Xmas, Furious_joe

on line 3, between "make" and "array" is a reason to proofread, and not
trust a spell checker.

[TJ]

vlsidesign wrote:

This syntax does not to work
nl, nt, ns = 0;

This is perfectly correct syntax, but it's not what you thik it is. The
comma operator evaluates it's operands from left to right. So in your
example, the first thing it does is evaluate the value of nl, and then
throw it away. Then it evals the value of nt, and throws that away too.
Now it evaluates "ns = 0", which assigns the value 0 to ns. So nl and
nt were not changed in any way...

The only one that get's initialized is ns.
nl and nt because they don't initialize seem to get some junk from
memory.

That's right. the "junk from memory" that's in nl and nt is probably
because you declared them as "auto" variables, and they're not declared
at file scope. So they just get whatever's on the stack at the time
they're created.

(Forgive me if I'm using "evaluate" wrongly. I've been reading up on
funtional languages and I can't remember if we use the same word for
C...)

TJ

[Richard Heathfield]

vlsidesign said:

[Subject line: "what is the least amount of typing to assign the same value
to multiple variables"]

That's the wrong criterion for professional programming. Instead, ask
yourself "how can I make my intent clearest to a maintenance programmer?"

If what matters is that all of the objects have the same value, then do
this:

x = y = z = whatever;

If there is no connection between them, however, and the requirement to have
the same value is merely a coincidence (e.g. you're "zeroing them out"),
then do this:

x = whatever;
y = whatever;
z = whatever;

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Sensei]

On 2006-12-24 10:01:02 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validsaid:

If what matters is that all of the objects have the same value, then do this:

x = y = z = whatever;

If there is no connection between them, however, and the requirement to
have the same value is merely a coincidence (e.g. you're "zeroing them
out"), then do this:

x = whatever;
y = whatever;
z = whatever;

I'm curious... Is this just syntactic sugar? In the sense that both of
them yield the same results, so they are not distinguishable in the
end. Is it so?

--
Sensei <senseiwa@Apple 's mail>

Research (n.): a discovery already published by a chinese guy one month
before you, copying a russian who did it in the 60s.

[TJ]

x = whatever;

y = whatever;
z = whatever;

I'm curious... Is this just syntactic sugar? In the sense that both of
them yield the same results, so they are not distinguishable in the
end. Is it so?

No. "=" is an operator which returns a value, and is evaluated from
right to left. It can be used anywhere an expression can. So, an
expression containing "=" can be passed to "=" as an operand too.

TJ

[CBFalconer]

vlsidesign wrote:

furious_joe wrote:

>vlsidesign wrote:

>>This syntax does not to work
nl, nt, ns = 0;
The only one that get's initialized is ns. nl and nt because
they don't initialize seem to get some junk from memory.

I have done these two versions that work:
nl = 0; nt = 0; ns = 0;
nl = nt = ns = 0;

I wonder what is the normal way it is done? In the context
below I wonder how the commas are interpreted as:
nl, nt, ns = 0;

This may cause undefined behaviour, because nl and nt may be
uninitialized, yet they are being evaluated and the result
discarded. See the comma operator in K&R.

>>
Just curious: why does it matter? If you need millions of
variables, just make and array, and initialize it with a loop.
or use calloc(), which works like malloc(), but initializes the
condense to 0.

It doesn't, I am a newbie and just wondering. I am going through
the "The C programming language" by Kernighan and Ritchie, the
Second edition -- this book seems very good.

It is, and you will learn a lot from it.

I habitually use the "a = b = c = 0;" form. This has the potential
of generating very efficient code, although many compilers miss
here in optimization.

For automatic storage I tend to avoid initializers in the
definitions, unless it significantly adds to the clarity. Such
initializers generate code in the function body, and you don't have
a way to re-execute that code. So, to me, they just hide things to
no purpose. Many will disagree, some violently.

Please don't top-post. Your answer belongs after, or intermixed
with, the material you quote, after snipping portions not germane
to your answer. See the following links:

--
Some informative links:
<http://www.geocities.c om/nnqweb/>
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html >
<http://www.netmeister. org/news/learn2quote.htm l>
<http://cfaj.freeshell. org/google/>