Hi On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:57:11PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:15:39AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 03:10:32PM +0100, Panagiotis Issaris wrote: > >> > > >> > The attached patch brings the number of warnings from 33 to 16 by: > >> > * suggest parentheses around && within || > >> > >> not ok > > > > Why? Note that I don't mean to question this decision, I'm just > > interested in the reasons. > > Any fool knows that && has higher precedence than ||. Adding > parenthesis only makes the code harder to read. exactly and my reasoning why its ok with + vs >> is that their precedence is somewhat unintuitive, (my) intuition says << and >> should have precedence similar to * and / as their operation is similar now C does something else and iam sure theres a good justification why ... [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. -- Diogenes of Sinope -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20070125/f39edbda/attachment.pgp>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4