468,504 Members | 1,979 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,504 developers. It's quick & easy.

The Wikipedia article on C and C++ operators

This concerns the Wikipedia article on C and C++ operators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B

Until very recently the first table in the page was a very
useful one on the precedence of C operators. This has
recently been replaced by one on C++ operators. I'm
not at all happy with that but I guess I can always link
to the history page. But I was wondering if anyone could
have a look and verify that the C part is correct. I'm pretty
sure that in C postfix/prefix increment/decrement have
the same priority. Is it different in C++ ?

By the way here's the page I have been using:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=59984787

Cheers
Spiros Bousbouras

Jul 28 '06
52 4552
"kwikius" <an**@servocomm.freeserve.co.ukwrote:
sp****@gmail.com wrote:
This concerns the Wikipedia article on C and C++ operators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B

Until very recently the first table in the page was a very
useful one on the precedence of C operators. This has
recently been replaced by one on C++ operators. I'm
not at all happy with that but I guess I can always link
to the history page. But I was wondering if anyone could
have a look and verify that the C part is correct. I'm pretty
sure that in C postfix/prefix increment/decrement have
the same priority. Is it different in C++ ?

Hang on. Are you saying that the table of precedence for C++ operators,
now has precedence over the table of precedence for the table of C
operators, whereas previously the table now preceeding was in fact
previously not preceeding the table which previously preceeded it? If
so the correct procedure is to proceed to replace if possible these
tables of precedence in their previous precedence. Simple really ...
A prescient reply, but doing so might set a precedent.

Richard
Jul 31 '06 #51
Victor Bazarov wrote:
sp****@gmail.com wrote:
And in case people haven't noticed, I'm still looking for
a reliable table of C operators precedence on the net. Surely
a lot of people would have a use for such a thing.

So why did you mix C++ into it?
1) I wanted to find out if operator precedence
is different in C++. Partly due to curiosity and
partly because I wanted to know if it is reliable to
consult tables on C++ operator precedence when
I'm interested in C.

2) To alert the people on comp.lang.c++ that a change
has been made to a Wikipedia article on C++ in case
they wanted to check its accuracy. Assuming they're
not as cynical about Wikipedia as Richard Heathfield
is.

Spiros Bousbouras

Aug 2 '06 #52

Richard Bos wrote:
A prescient reply, but doing so might set a precedent.
No problem . I'm presently president of the society for the
preservation of precedence in Wiki operator precedence tables.
Unfortunately the previous president, Pete, was found to be unfairly
manipulating the the operators and the tables themselves by putting
brackets around everything. Preposterous!. It is the societies aim to
have brackets banned because they play havoc with operator precedence
and make our society look completely ridiculous. We won't stand for
this type of behaviour and request that any sightings of such use of
brackets be reported to us forthwith.

regards
Andy Little

Aug 3 '06 #53

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.