关于C和C ++运算符的维基百科文章 [英] The Wikipedia article on C and C++ operators
问题描述
这涉及维基百科关于C和C ++运算符的文章：
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B
直到最近，页面中的第一个表格非常
对C运算符的优先级有用。最近已经用C ++运算符替换了一个
。我是
对此并不满意，但我想我总是可以将
链接到历史页面。但我想知道是否有人可以看看并确认C部分是正确的。我很漂亮
确保在C后缀/前缀增量/减量中具有相同优先级的
。它在C ++中是不同的吗？
顺便说一句，这是我一直在使用的页面：
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?..oldid = 59984787
干杯
Spiros Bousbouras
This concerns the Wikipedia article on C and C++ operators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B
Until very recently the first table in the page was a very
useful one on the precedence of C operators. This has
recently been replaced by one on C++ operators. I''m
not at all happy with that but I guess I can always link
to the history page. But I was wondering if anyone could
have a look and verify that the C part is correct. I''m pretty
sure that in C postfix/prefix increment/decrement have
the same priority. Is it different in C++ ?
By the way here''s the page I have been using:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=59984787
Cheers
Spiros Bousbouras
推荐答案
[后续设置为comp.lang.c]
sp **** @ gmail.com 说：
< snip>
[Followups set to comp.lang.c]
sp****@gmail.com said:
<snip>
但我想知道是否有人可以
查看并验证[维基文章]的C部分是否正确。
But I was wondering if anyone could
have a look and verify that the C part [of a Wiki article] is correct.
没有意义。即使它今天恰好是正确的，今晚也可能会错误的是
。
-
Richard Heathfield
Usenet是一个奇怪的地方 - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
电子邮件：rjh在上面的域名（但显然放弃了www）
No point. Even if it happens to be correct today, it could be wrong again by
this evening.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
sp **** @ gmail.com 写道：
...
我很漂亮
确保在C后缀/前缀增量/减量中具有相同优先级的
。它在C ++中是不同的吗？
...
...
I''m pretty
sure that in C postfix/prefix increment/decrement have
the same priority. Is it different in C++ ?
...
这是什么意思？究竟是什么具有相同的优先级？
例如，前缀增量和前缀减少在
C和C ++中具有相同的优先级，但这并不重要，因为没有
上下文，因为它们都很重要（因为两者都是_prefix_）。这同样适用于
后缀运算符。
当谈到一元运算符时，优先级问题也是如此。仅当我们将
比较前缀运算符和后缀运算符时才存在。在C和C ++中，后缀一元
运算符通常比前缀运算符具有更高的优先级。
-
祝你好运，
Andrey Tarasevich
What do you mean by this? What exactly has "the same priority"?
Prefix increment and prefix decrement, for example, do have the same priority in
both C and C++, but this is not really something important because there is no
context where it would matter (since both are _prefix_). The same applies to
postfix operators.
When it comes to unary operators, the issue of "priority" only exists when we
compare a prefix operator to a postfix one. And in both C and C++ postfix unary
operators normally have higher priority than prefix ones.
--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
sp **** @ gmail .com 写道：
这涉及维基百科关于C和C ++运算符的文章：
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B
直到最近，页面中的第一个表格对于C运算符的优先级是非常有用的。最近已经用C ++运算符替换了一个
。我是
对此并不满意，但我想我总是可以将
链接到历史页面。但我想知道是否有人可以看看并确认C部分是正确的。我很漂亮
确保在C后缀/前缀增量/减量中具有相同优先级的
。它在C ++中是不同的吗？
This concerns the Wikipedia article on C and C++ operators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B
Until very recently the first table in the page was a very
useful one on the precedence of C operators. This has
recently been replaced by one on C++ operators. I''m
not at all happy with that but I guess I can always link
to the history page. But I was wondering if anyone could
have a look and verify that the C part is correct. I''m pretty
sure that in C postfix/prefix increment/decrement have
the same priority. Is it different in C++ ?
在C ++中，postfix的优先级高于前缀。表格似乎很好
那里。
我确信在C中它是一样的。
存在循环依赖在三元和任务之间，表格
只是
无法反映出来。
In C++ postfix has higher precedence than prefix. The table seems fine
there.
I am certain that in C it is the same.
There is a circular dependency between ternary and assignment, the table
simply
cannot reflect that.
顺便说一下这里''我一直在使用的页面：
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?..oldid=59984787
这是错误的。
V
-
请在通过电子邮件回复时删除资金''A'
我没有回复最热门的回复，请不要问
That would be wrong.
V
--
Please remove capital ''A''s when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don''t ask
这篇关于关于C和C ++运算符的维基百科文章的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
