From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-09 02:23:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail From: "AG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1 References: <3B0DBD4A.82943473@my-deja.net> <3b1ee2d5$2$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net> <3b20009c$2@news.tce.com> <3B2056A5.86396F55@home.com> Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 21:23:47 +1200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.54.87.23 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 992078604 210.54.87.23 (Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:23:24 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:23:24 NZST Organization: Xtra Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8483 comp.lang.awk:2948 comp.lang.clarion:21533 comp.lang.java.programmer:74968 comp.lang.pl1:949 Date: 2001-06-09T21:23:47+12:00 List-Id: "Goran Larsson" wrote in message news:GELwCw.K0r@approve.se... > In article <3B2056A5.86396F55@home.com>, > Donald L. Dobbs wrote: > > > Here is some C code I had to contend with -- it adds a new dimension to > > cryptic write-only code: > > > x=(--(p)->_cnt>=0?(*(p)->_ptr++=x)&0xff:_flsbuf(x&0xff,p)) > > > Unless you were the original programmer of the above you don't have a > > prayer on this one without some additional commentary somewhere... > > I'm not the original programmer, but this is obviously the contents of a > implementation specific macro for a broken version of the C stdio > function putc. Looks like you have just defined what the "obviously" means in the the context of the "of a implementation specific macro for a broken version of the C" So, what about the hope for someone who really needs to read THAT? And what's so "obvious" about that? > > Why are you taking extremely compiler specific code that is implemented > as a macro expansion for speed as an example of how typical C code > looks like? I'm afraid I lost you there... Do you mean that this sort of thing is something compiler-specific thing and NOT acceptable by other C compilers? And if it's NOT then how exactly is it C?