Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
1–10 of 140 posts
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#2(2012)
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#3Who the hell doesn't think of `sizeof` as a function?
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#4Who the hell doesn't think of `sizeof` as a function?
I learned C from 'Kernighan & Ritchie', where it's never referred to as a function but as a compile-time operator. I've never thought of it as a function.
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#5Who the hell doesn't think of `sizeof` as a function?
[deleted]
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#6IIRC, if the argument to sizeof is a type, the parentheses are mandatory, anyway, so using it like it was a function is more consistent.
I think the reason it is not a function from the standard's point of view is that C does not have any builtin functions (unless my memory totally fails me in this case), all functions have to be either defined locally or #included.
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#7Who the hell doesn't think of `sizeof` as a function?
Well it's an operator, and algebra said all them are just functions... Just like `+` is a function
Anyways not all those writing code have CS background
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#8I'd like to confess that I'm one of the return() people, and I also do if() even in cases where the language doesn't require it. This behavior isn't borne out of confusion about what is and what isn't a special language construct. Rather, it helps me prop up the illusion that programming is about using a few simple primitives instead of being the chain of compiler directives it actually entails - it's an esthetic choice if not always a logical one.
The thought that if() could just be a lazily-evaluated function taking a code block argument, and that return() could be a way of marking the end result of an expression somehow pleases me.
I think the different expectations about sizeof() come from the artificial distinction between operators and functions, the implication being that in a compiled language the sizeof operator would be a compile-time construct, or barring that, at least a behavior of the type system. On the other hand, there are tons of compiler intrinsics in C/C++ that look exactly like functions but aren't.
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#9I'd like to confess that I'm one of the return() people, and I also do if() even in cases where the language doesn't require it. This behavior isn't borne out of confusion about what is and what isn't a special language construct. Rather, it helps me prop up the illusion that programming is about using a few simple primitives instead of being the chain of compiler directives it actually entails - it's an esthetic cho…
Doesn't `if` always require parenthesizes?
Re: Humans should think of sizeof() as a function, says Linus Torvalds
#10I'd like to confess that I'm one of the return() people, and I also do if() even in cases where the language doesn't require it. This behavior isn't borne out of confusion about what is and what isn't a special language construct. Rather, it helps me prop up the illusion that programming is about using a few simple primitives instead of being the chain of compiler directives it actually entails - it's an esthetic cho…
[deleted]