Followers 0

# Eight, Nine, Ten...

## 32 posts in this topic

edit:
Oh gosh, I didn't even realize the TEN issue... That's horrible.

That edit made my day :D - that is exactly why this is so scary.

0

##### Share on other sites

an explanation for the more noobish of us? what's wrong with that definition? >_<;

1

##### Share on other sites

Could be binary coded decimal... [snip]

That sounds so convoluted it requires its own thread.

Unfortunately that wasn't the case here - this code, according to a colleague who originally fixed it - caused a fatal crash in the software.

0

##### Share on other sites

Obvious, the coder has 8 fingers on each hand

Edited by Tournicoti
2

##### Share on other sites

Obvious, the coder has 8 fingers on each hand

... maybe the use of named constants is what was at fault here ...

...
#define FOURTY_TWO (042)
#define NINETEEN_EIGHTY_FOUR (NINETEEN, EIGHTY, FOUR)
...
0

##### Share on other sites

#define FOURTY_TWO (042)

Eurgh. I have many horror stories of Octal gone awry.
1

##### Share on other sites

#define FOURTY_TWO (042)

That's even worse!!!

0

##### Share on other sites

That's even worse!!!

This used to happen to me when I was trying to align constants properly. Nowadays I just put spaces instead, been burned too often by this damn octal notation "feature" which I'm guessing nobody actually uses, except the odd raw socket hacker (if even). Permission bits are another one, but constants for those are already defined anyway.

0

##### Share on other sites

That's even worse!!!

This used to happen to me when I was trying to align constants properly. Nowadays I just put spaces instead, been burned too often by this damn octal notation "feature" which I'm guessing nobody actually uses, except the odd raw socket hacker (if even). Permission bits are another one, but constants for those are already defined anyway.

at one point I made things more orthogonal (for my script language) by adding several number notations:
0b... //binary
0c... //octal
0d... //decimal

then got into a big mental debate as to whether or not to keep '0' by itself as an octal prefix, make it decimal, or maybe just deprecate it and issue a warning...

note, '_' is also a spacer, so:
0d999_999_999
is the same as:
999999999

likewise:
0x5CD13A42_3B9AC9FFL
or:
999_999_999_999_999_999L
or:
0x0DE0_B6B3__A763_FFFFL
0

##### Share on other sites

Octal was big back in the day when C was being made, maybe even moreso than hexadecimal. These days nobody really uses it since it can't be aligned nicely to 8-bit (some computers back then had words with a bit count multiple of 3, so octal probably made a lot more of sense).

0

##### Share on other sites

Still trying to figure out the reasoning behind that. Is that what happens when your code analysis tool complains about "magic numbers" and somebody just decides to "fix it"?

Because having one such tool complain about '0' being a "magic number" really made me question the worth of that tool and what the creators' code would look like.

0

##### Share on other sites

#define ONE     +1
#define TWENTY  +20
#define HUNDRED +100

// Here's a little example
#include <iostream>

int main()
{
int x = ONE;
std::cout << x << std::endl;

x = ONE HUNDRED;
std::cout << x << std::endl;

x = ONE HUNDRED TWENTY;
std::cout << x << std::endl;

x = ONE HUNDRED TWENTY ONE;
std::cout << x << std::endl;
}


Or even worse:


#define ONE     +0x001
#define TWENTY  +0x020
#define HUNDRED +0x100


TWO HUNDRED == 102


But don't worry - we can fix it! We just need to be "clever"...

#define AND +0
#define ONE +1
#define TWO +2
#define TWENTY +20
#define HUNDRED *100

// Here's a little example
#include <iostream>

int main()
{
int x = TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY ONE;
std::cout << x << std::endl;
// prints 221
}

This way you even get to write grammatically correct numbers.

Edited by Bacterius
1

##### Share on other sites

I think we should pool our efforts and make a programming language where this kind of thing is sane.

0

##### Share on other sites

*snip*

Ah, good catch!

I think we should pool our efforts and make a programming language where this kind of thing is sane.

I was hoping for a more concise solution, but here we go (so now you can use commas and hyphens in your numbers!):
#include <type_traits>

template <typename T>
struct Number
{
mutable T n;
Number(T n) : n(n) {}

const Number<T> operator+() const
{
return *this;
}

template <typename U>
const Number<typename std::common_type<T, U>::type> operator, (const Number<U>& num) const
{
return n + num.n;
}

template <typename U>
const Number<typename std::common_type<T, U>::type> operator- (const Number<U>& num) const
{
return n + num.n;
}

template <typename U>
const Number<typename std::common_type<T, U>::type> operator+ (const Number<U>& num) const
{
return n + num.n;
}

template <typename U>
const Number<typename std::common_type<T, U>::type> operator* (const Number<U>& num) const
{
return n * num.n;
}

operator T() const
{
return n;
}
};

Number<unsigned long long> operator"" _n(unsigned long long n)
{
return n;
}

#define ONE      +1_n
#define TWO      +2_n
#define THREE    +3_n
#define FOUR     +4_n
// ... add more if you wish
#define TWENTY   +20_n
#define HUNDRED  *100_n
#define THOUSAND *1000_n
#define AND

#define TIMES *
#define MINUS -

#include <iostream>

int main()
{
// The only real drawback is that you have to surround them with parentheses if you use ,
int x = (FOUR THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE);
int y = (ONE HUNDRED AND ONE);
int result = x TIMES y;
std::cout << x << " * " << y << " = " << result << std::endl;

result = x MINUS y;
std::cout << x << " - " << y << " = " << result << std::endl;
}

Edited by Cornstalks
2

##### Share on other sites

I think we should pool our efforts and make a programming language where this kind of thing is sane.

It's called "Cobol"...

-1

##### Share on other sites
...#define efftyeff (0xff)...

HAHA! Classic!
0

##### Share on other sites

why someone (sane) would use #define for numbers is beyond me...

0

## Create an account

Register a new account