1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.LANG.C

  • on changing paradigm of assign call

    From fir@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 1 16:15:37 2024
    i tried to "design" well a function definition
    and meed terrible stall i would say in thsi - dont know how to
    do it though i think few years on this

    (the probl;ematic is especially this returned values part)

    as its go so hard i began to think if this paradigm of calls is not just
    wrong and some somewhat new idea come to me (though partially i was
    thinking on it)

    in fact i fint annoying this form

    int x = foo()

    annoying is especially this "=" sign as this is not quite assignment imo

    other annoying think is thet you need to define x at all
    and maybe this is a problem or its part

    instead of

    int x = add(2,3)
    print(x)

    maybe it should be

    add(2,3)
    print(add)


    i mean the function name without the () should just represent the
    return value so you no need to asign it

    present c allows print(add(2,3))
    but disalows to reuste it (and assign etc/et more

    im close to think it definitely should

    i mean

    strlen("sjsbsjbhs"")
    printf("%d", strlen)

    obviously some names could maybe not fit like

    find_character_position(txt, 'x');

    print(find_character_position);

    it should be moer lieke "found"

    but i think it could be resolved by allowing to define this


    int found find_character_position(char* txt, char c);
    {
    //...
    // or return int found; //something liek that liek defining
    structure neme
    }

    then this found name should be avaliable to caller



    so

    find_character_position(txt, 'x');
    if(found>=0)....

    or
    sumarize(2,3,3,2,2,3)
    if(sum<10) ...

    those function call asigments are probably some kind pf mistake
    (though it looks a bit weird not to do that)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From fir@21:1/5 to fir on Sun Sep 1 16:29:19 2024
    fir wrote:

    find_character_position(txt, 'x');
    if(found>=0)....

    wel in fact this should set a boolean "found" and unsigned "position"

    find_character_position(txt, 'x');
    if(found) printf("found at %d", position);

    it looks weird as soem must know thet {find_character_position, found,
    position} is a set of names provided by thsi function not only the
    name but coders are expected to know function name so they could be
    expected to know whole set...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to fir on Mon Sep 2 01:45:05 2024
    On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 16:15:37 +0200, fir wrote:

    int x = foo()

    annoying is especially this "=" sign as this is not quite assignment
    imo

    The original symbol as used in Algol-like languages was “:=”. While C copies quite a few features from the Algol family, it made the
    questionable decision to shorten the assignment operator to “=”,
    ostensibly to save typing. Which meant they had to invent a different
    symbol, “==”, to denote an equality comparison.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bart@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Mon Sep 2 11:03:03 2024
    On 02/09/2024 02:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 16:15:37 +0200, fir wrote:

    int x = foo()

    annoying is especially this "=" sign as this is not quite assignment
    imo

    The original symbol as used in Algol-like languages was “:=”. While C copies quite a few features from the Algol family, it made the
    questionable decision to shorten the assignment operator to “=”, ostensibly to save typing. Which meant they had to invent a different
    symbol, “==”, to denote an equality comparison.

    The original symbol in FORTRAN, which came before Algol, was "=" for
    assignment (and .EQ. for equality)

    BASIC, which came long before C, used "=" for both. It could do that
    because it didn't allow assignment inside an expression.

    (Meanwhile I use '=' for equality, for defining new named entities, and
    for compile-time assignments. Runtime assignments used ':=':

    static int a = 100 # inside function
    int b := 200

    The line is blurred a little in dynamic code when some '=' assignments
    need to be done as execution starts.

    In C though it gets confusing using the same symbol for each;

    static int a = 100; // Initialised once only (and likely before
    // execution starts)
    int b = 200; // Initialised every time it is encountered)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Janis Papanagnou@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Sun Sep 8 06:10:59 2024
    On 02.09.2024 03:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 16:15:37 +0200, fir wrote:

    int x = foo()

    annoying is especially this "=" sign as this is not quite assignment
    imo

    The original symbol as used in Algol-like languages was “:=”.

    Well, for assignments that's true. But the '=' symbol has also been
    used in Algol 68 as an identity operator (to define constants), and
    above int x = foo() can be interpreted as such.

    Janis

    [...]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)