On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:02:00 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> According to the tutorial, "if your compiler does not support this, it  
> is not a standards-compliant C++ compiler".

There is currently as far as I know only one C++ compiler vendor that even  
claims to implement the full standard.


> I keep trying to sort out in my head which combination of symbols mean  
> bitwise operations and which ones mean logical operations.

The bitwise operators are all single character. There are also only four  
of them. You get used to it.


> Using names makes the difference clear. (To me anyway.)
> Of course, none of this helps with trying to read other people's code.

Which is why it would be better in the long run to simply get used to the  
symbols.


> (Now Haskell also uses symbols for both. However, in Haskell, if you try  
> to perform logical operations on numbers, you get a type error, and vice  
> versa. Unfortunately C++ inherits C's braindead "hey, if you can  
> represent it as an unstructured bit pattern, it's an int, right?"  
> mentallity.)

The bitwise operators in C & C++ only work on integers. However, there are  
a few silent conversions to 'int' to be aware of.


> Uh-huh. Yeah, I'll be doing that. I'd like to write code that will  
> compile everywhere. ;-)
>
> Who'd have thought? An M$ product bending the standard slightly...  
> </sarcasm>

I hope you do not think GCC is standards-compliant by default either.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message