On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Zoltán Kócsi <zol...@bendor.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:51:47 -0600
> Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Zoltán Kócsi <zol...@bendor.com.au> wrote:
>> > David Brown <david.br...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Until gcc gets a feature allowing it to whack the programmer on the back
>> >> of the head with Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" for writing
>> >> such stupid code that relies on the behaviour of volatile "a = b = 0;",
>> >> then a warning seems like a good idea.
>> >
>> > a = b = 0; might be stupid.
>> >
>> > Is if ( ( a = expr ) ); is also stupid?
>>
>> If you ask me, yes.
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I like
The question I was responding to did not ask
about "beauty" nor "likability".
>
> while (( *dst++ = *src++ ));
>
> better than
>
> _some_type_ tmp;
>
> do {
> tmp = *src;
> *dst = tmp;
> src = src + 1;
> dst = dst + 1;
> } while ( tmp != 0 );
I don't think there a claim that one couldn't write more stupid code.
>
>
> Zoltan
