Since I just read these operators were later removed from gcc again, it must not all have been perfect either :D.
On 08 Jul 2014, at 16:04, Jutho <[email protected]> wrote: > Fully realising that this discussion has been settled and the convention is > here to stay, I nevertheless feel obsessed to make the remark that there > would have been more elegant solutions. Other languages have been able to > come up with acceptable operators for a binary 'min' or 'max': > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.2/gcc_5.html#SEC107 > (less elegant alternative since the difference between min and max is > confusing: > http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/imlug/59656/HTML/default/viewer.htm#langref_sect10.htm > ) > > The linguistic difference between max and maximum is very subtle, maybe > because I am not a native English speaker. From the mathematical point of > view, I think of a maximum (but preferably abbreviated as max) always in the > context of a function or a set, never in the context of the largest out of > two numbers > (not really a reference or definition, but > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxima_and_minima only/directly discusses > functions and sets). > > >? compares to max as + compares to sum would have been so much more > >convincing :-). That's all, enough bikeshedding for now, back to work. > > Op maandag 5 mei 2014 17:46:05 UTC+2 schreef Stefan Karpinski: > I think at this point, while the maximum name may not be everyone's favorite > choice, that bikeshed has sailed. Unless we're going to solve this problem > differently, it's going to stay the way it is: max is to maximum as + is to > sum. > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ethan Anderes <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for max() and pmax(). It seems the easiest to write and to interpret. >
