"bearophile" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Nick Sabalausky: >> Disagree. Octal can often useful on low-level embedded stuff. > > I think the point was to improve the syntax of octal numbers, not to > remove them. So 0125 becomes a syntax error (as usual to keep > compatibility with C, otherwise it's better to make it just mean 125), and > invent a less error-prone syntax for octal numbers. For example 0oxxxx. > > >> > * the comma operator (allow in selected places, eg for(; ;++a, ++b)). >> What is the problem with these? > > Generally the comma operator is useful only in particular situations, and > in other situations it may lead to errors. > > This is an acceptable use (but this too may lead to some errors): > for( i = 0, j = MAX; i <= j; ++i, --j ) > > This shows some of the stupid uses of the comma operator: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/54142/c-comma-operator >
I see. I had assumed the comma operator was only valid in the "init" and "increment" sections of a for loop. Didn't know it was usable outside of that. In that case, I'd have to mostly agree. But I would hate to lose the ability to write a for loop such as the one you wrote above.
