Talk:Operators in C and C++

C/C++ Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.C/C++Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++Template:WikiProject C/C++C/C++ articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Prototypes

The prototype column horribly esoteric. It needs its own explanation.

Describe what they do

Hi. I wonder if it might be useful to describe what some of these operators do. I'm not familiar, for example, with the comma (',') operator, and it would be neat to know what it does.

Well, it is hard to put that stuff in the table, but I agree it would be nice to have links or something. For what it is worth though, the comma operator is not very important. The most common place it is used is in for statements, for ( ix=0, jx=0; ix < t; ix++ ){}. Do you see the comma? It means, "evaluate the expression to the left, now go on and evaluate the expression to the right". The final value is the value of the last expression (ignored in this very typical case). It is different than commas in function calls because, for one thing, terms there are evaluated right to left. Also note that, at least in this case, there is another way to write this without commas: jx=0; for (ix=0; ix < t; ix++){}. AJim 01:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Separate C and C++?

Why have C and C++ operators been lumped into one article? It would be less confusing to have separate articles for each. Eric119 00:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're better than 95% congruent. Having separate articles would be inefficient. Furthermore, placing them together emphasizes the close relationship between the two languages.

I agree, C++ is a superset of C. 67.161.46.169 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, actually, but it's true operator-wise 68.238.86.68 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The distinction is made even greater by the introduction of the C99 standard. Denis Kasak 12:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true from the point of view of operators however? I don't remember C99 introducing any new operators.

C++ didn't take any operators away, and C99 didn't add any (check the article). 141.149.206.197 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done about the new and delete operators. First, new/delete definitely aren't in C. — Mobius 02:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's why it says "no" under "in C?" --131.215.155.112 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

order of operations

This page needs an order of operations. I'll probably put it on here. 67.161.46.169 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section needs to be moved to just before notes. It interferes with the first paragraph which is describing the tables following the order section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.233.63 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference (prefix &) operator

Can the reference operator really be overloaded? I'm fairly sure it can't.... Not sure where to look, though. 68.238.86.68 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can be overloaded (I just tried) Mrjeff 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's really weird. 68.238.86.68 22:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you are curious, I went and had a look at why it can be overloaded. There are two main reasons. Firstly, there was a choice made that unless there is a good reason not to allow overloading an operator, all overloads would be allowed. Secondly, it could be useful if you have objects which taking a "normal reference" to might not make sense, but which you want to provide a "smart pointer" to. Mrjeff 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another use, is iterators as used in the STL.

Operators in other languages

I just removed this sentance:

Those operators that are in C are also in Java, Perl, C#, and PHP with the same precedence, associativity, and semantics.

From the article. I'm happy for something similar to go back in, but as it stands it is not true, as for example the comma operator, which is in C, is not in java or C#. Mrjeff 14:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C++ cast operators?

I don't know the answer to this question, but it seems like a useful thing to be in this article, if someone else knows. The C-style cast operator (type) is in the table, but what about the special C++ cast operators static_cast<type>(), dynamic_cast<type>(), reinterpret_cast<type>(), and const_cast<type>()?

These are mentioned at the top of the page. I cannot see a good reason for them not to live in the table however, so they shouldn't probably be moved there. Feel free to do so :) Mrjeff 12:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope operator

The scope operator in C++ is different from the other operators, I think. Even if it is mentioned as an operator in some parts of the C++ standard it does not behave like an operator but as an token (or name) joiner. I.e. you cannot put parentheses around to change the order of evaluation: if A::B::C is a valid expression, (A::B)::C has a different meaning (a C-style type cast) and A::(B::C) is a syntax error. What do you think, should we mention this special behavior of the "operator" ::? --89.55.168.117 10:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:RokerHRO)[reply]

Label value operator

Recently, there was a revert to remove the Label Value Operator && from the list of C/C++ operators. While it is true that the operator is not at all standard ISO C/C++, it is a non-standard extension to some dialects, one of which is documented here. This raises the question of whether or not there should be a seperate table for operators sometimes seen as extensions to the language. I mean, such operators aren't C/C++, but they might still be of interest to some programmers. Maybe another page would be good? Extended operators? --Cgranade 08:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not many operators get added as extensions (slight changes in existing operator semantics are more common), so added a new subsection to the table. See how things develop. Derek farn 08:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, looks good. Think I'll make the name a link, though, since it isn't clear from the table what a label value operator is exactly.

I don't get this. Why include some non-standard operator that is not found in most compilers? There is already a standard label: statement (not operator) that should be compatible with all compilers. -Andrew ^{flame him | stalk him} 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Changes

A recent edit made a large number of changes to this article, none of which I feel contribute positively to its content. That's just my opinion, but I did revert them; here is my reasoning:

The symbols a, b, and c as used in the table do not just represent "valid values": depending upon context, they might be object names or lvalues, as well.
The word "declaration" has two As and one E.
The characters &, <, and > should never be entered directly into HTML. Use the character entities instead: &, <, and >, respectively.
The models illustrating how to overload the operators make the table seem confusing and too technical.
Similarly, the explanation of how to overload the operators is an implementation detail; it is not, in my opinion, the job of this article to explain how to overload each operator.

I'm not going to defend the article like a hawk, but I would like to see some discussion rather than a total reversion.—Kbolino 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is wiki-markup, you do not need to escape the chars. The reason I added the overload info was that I could not find an exhaustive list anywhere (I'm writing a code generator which infers operator overloads, on mathematic objects, of course). So, I painstakingly constructed one here, looking through many sources, guidelines to arrive at these. Yes, it makes it look technical, but this is programming, after all. True, people might not look to wikipedia for their programming reference, however, I've noticed more lately that language documentation is exceedingly crappy. I'd like to have a place I can lookup such overloads. For example, look at overloading postfix increment - is that crazy or what? Anyway, it'd be sacrificing my work, and valuable screen space that will just be blank. I'm reverting back, though taking out the spelling errorMgsloan 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a rather large reply, but I guess I shut off my computer before actually hitting "Save page". I will try to recollect my thoughts and reply again.—Kbolino 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associativity - inconsistency with linked article ("left-ro-right" vs. "left-associative")

The title says it all - in the article about associativity which is linked from this article, there are two terms defined: "left-associative" and "right-associative". But in this article, "left-ro-right" and "right-to-left" is used. That's inconsistent. I think that "left-to-right" probably corresponds to "left-associative" and the same for right, but thinking is not knowing. If so, maybe a middle-way correction could be good ("left-associative (left-to-right)"), since "left-to-right" is more intuitive name that "left-associative", so I think we should keep both namings. What do you think?

& and | are arithmetic operators

  a & b == 7

means

  a & (b == 7)   ,

while

  a + b == 7

means

  (a + b) == 7   .

......Does this mean the same thing?

No, the first does == first, the second does addition first. It's what operator precedence is all about. --King Mir (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C and C++ Stringify operator

Are there any plans on adding the stringify operator (#)? Another operator to consider adding would be the token concatenation operator (##).

If so, how would they get added, especially considering they are only usable in macros?

Deterb (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stringify and token concatenation operators are not technically C or C++ operators -- they are preprocessor operators, and are dealt with in the article C preprocessor. I think it makes more sense to leave them there, rather than merging them here. --Wayne Miller (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, leave them in the preprocessor section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipity33 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error in article

I would like to have it confirmed before I will edit and change this page.

so ...

statement

 e = ((a ? b : c) = d)

is not an error!

a?b:c returns reference to a or b. So we have lvalue.

Please confirm that I'm right or wrong

Varciasz (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in C and right in C++. Derek farn (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT an error! Both in C as in C++. 'b' and 'c' are lvalues, so assignment is possible. There will be a "warning: use of conditional as lvalues is deprecated" in C and its meaning will be different than in C++, but it works! --62.218.221.187 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links

This page needs more links. I will start by turning some words into links (without changing the content). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.233.63 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

typeof()

This is a pretty cool operator. I'm not sure if it's 'standard' or should be in the 'extensions' section, but it should be in the article. Also, I think the 'extensions' section should be expanded. The article shouldn't be 'noisy', but it should be a place where people can learn things about C++ they didn't previously know. (e.g., I had no idea about ->* or typeid()). Oh, and 'throw' is missing from the table. I'd like to know if it's overloadable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.195.47 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword typeof is a non-standard extension to the C++ language. A similar feature will be provided by the decltype keyword in C++0x. The throw keyword is a standard part of the C++ language. That said, not all keywords are operators, and I am fairly certain that neither decltype nor throw would be considered to be operators. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>? and <? operators

operators >? and >? doesn't exist in gcc anymore. (since gcc 4)

Precedence of type casting in plain C

The section 6.5.4 "Cast operators" in the WG14 N1124 draft stands after the unary operators section 6.5.3. According to a comment to the 6.5 "Expressions" chapter, this makes casting a lower precedence operator than unary operators. But I understand that there is no way to write a test for this as both cast and unary kinds apply to one operand and thus cannot be interpreted differently. --ilgiz (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"this"

I see that once again "this" has been removed. Even if technically not an operator, I think it should be here somehow, because I think many will try to find it here. At least could we have a discussion about it instead of an edit war. SimonTrew (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I considered adding a comment on the talk page. But I felt that my edit comment would be enough to settle the issue: removed "this" from the table, per [class.this]/1 of the standard. this is not an operator, so I think it's just confusing to have it in a list of operators. Possibly a mention at the bottom of the article, but not in the actual table. Just my 5c. decltype 19:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was kinda thinking the same myself. But actually I am coming round to your opinion and wonder if it is justified at all in this article, it's not difficult to search for. I'm just quite a fan of making cross-references, I think that is part of what gives Wikipedia its value. SimonTrew (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre- and postfix ++/--

The article sais that the postfix ++ operator is performed last; This should be: it is performed before returning a value, but the returned value is the old (unincremented) one. Can anyone change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.16.187 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual time when the increment happens is unspecified (as long as it is between the appropriate sequence points). Eric119 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]