5 ms·

Cast (according to the C99 standard, section 6.3, linked at bottom): A construction formed by preceding an expression by a parenthesized type name, converting t

Cast (according to the C99 standard, section 6.3, linked at bottom): A construction formed by preceding an expression by a parenthesized type name, converting the value of the expression to the named type. So in C, casting is a language syntax that provides and explicit way to specify type conversion (rather than the implicit conversion that happens in cases like promotion). Most type conversions Section 6.2.5 contains the defined type conversions, but most of what I'd consider edge cases are "implementation-defined" or have "undefined behavior". Does any of this bother me? No, not really. No more than it bothers me that there isn't a single, authoritative, and clear definition of what constitutes "strong typing" and which operations are a "violation" of it. (Linked from Wikipedia as being the C99 standard "effectively available for free"): http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf

graycat 11y ago
Thanks for the reference. Gee, that's a long way ahead of what I got out of reading K&R! In > So in C, casting is a language syntax right. So, cast is just syntax but short on semantics, that is, how the conversion is actually done so that we can know the results, that is, if you will, what the heck happens. In 6.3.1.5 Real floating types is > If the value being converted is in the range of values that can be represented but cannot be represented exactly, the result is either the nearest higher or nearest lower representable value, chosen in an implementation-defined manner. If the value being converted is outside the range of values that can be represented, the behavior is undefined. So, yes, this is an example of where I'd be concerned. On "strong typing", I always thought that the concept was poorly defined and described but never screamed bloody murder about it if only because it didn't directly affect what my software would do. I used "strong typing" in my post if only because it seems to be what the C community likes to do, and when in Rome do as Romans do. Or, maybe strong typing is better than weak typing or typeless -- okay by me.

graycat 11y ago

Thanks for the reference. Gee, that's a long way ahead of what I got out of reading K&R! In > So in C, casting is a language syntax right. So, cast is just syntax but short on semantics, that is, how the conversion is actually done so that we can know the results, that is, if you will, what the heck happens. In 6.3.1.5 Real floating types is > If the value being converted is in the range of values that can be represented but cannot be represented exactly, the result is either the nearest higher or nearest lower representable value, chosen in an implementation-defined manner. If the value being converted is outside the range of values that can be represented, the behavior is undefined. So, yes, this is an example of where I'd be concerned. On "strong typing", I always thought that the concept was poorly defined and described but never screamed bloody murder about it if only because it didn't directly affect what my software would do. I used "strong typing" in my post if only because it seems to be what the C community likes to do, and when in Rome do as Romans do. Or, maybe strong typing is better than weak typing or typeless -- okay by me.