Operators in c and c++ – wikipedia electricity allergy

The following is a table that lists the precedence and associativity of all the operators in the C and C++ languages (when the operators also exist in Java, Perl, PHP and many other recent languages, the precedence is the same as that given [ citation needed]). Operators are listed top to bottom, in descending precedence. Descending precedence refers to the priority of the grouping of operators and operands. Considering an expression, an operator which is listed on some row will be grouped prior to any operator that is listed on a row further below it. Operators that are in the same cell (there may be several rows of operators listed in a cell) are grouped with the same precedence, in the given direction. An operator’s precedence is unaffected by overloading.

The syntax of expressions in C and C++ is specified by a phrase structure grammar. [3] The table given here has been inferred from the grammar. [ citation needed] For the ISO C 1999 standard, section 6.5.6 note 71 states that the C grammar provided by the specification defines the precedence of the C operators, and also states that the operator precedence resulting from the grammar closely follows the specification’s section ordering:

A precedence table, while mostly adequate, cannot resolve a few details. In particular, note that the ternary operator allows any arbitrary expression as its middle operand, despite being listed as having higher precedence than the assignment and comma operators. Thus a ? b , c : d is interpreted as a ? (b, c) : d, and not as the meaningless (a ? b), (c : d). Also, note that the immediate, unparenthesized result of a C cast expression cannot be the operand of sizeof. Therefore, sizeof (int) * x is interpreted as (sizeof(int)) * x and not sizeof ((int) *x). Precedence

• For example, ++x*3 is ambiguous without some precedence rule(s). The precedence table tells us that: x is ‘bound’ more tightly to ++ than to *, so that whatever ++ does (now or later—see below), it does it ONLY to x (and not to x*3); it is equivalent to ( ++x, x*3).

• Similarly, with 3*x++, where though the post-fix ++ is designed to act AFTER the entire expression is evaluated, the precedence table makes it clear that ONLY x gets incremented (and NOT 3*x). In fact, the expression ( tmp=x++, 3*tmp) is evaluated with tmp being a temporary value. It is functionally equivalent to something like ( tmp=3*x, ++x, tmp).

• Abstracting the issue of precedence or binding, consider the diagram above for the expression 3+2*y[i]++. The compiler’s job is to resolve the diagram into an expression, one in which several unary operators (call them 3+( . ), 2*( . ), ( . )++ and ( . )[ i ]) are competing to bind to y. The order of precedence table resolves the final sub-expression they each act upon: ( . )[ i ] acts only on y, ( . )++ acts only on y[i], 2*( . ) acts only on y[i]++ and 3+( . ) acts ‘only’ on 2*((y[i])++). It is important to note that WHAT sub-expression gets acted on by each operator is clear from the precedence table but WHEN each operator acts is not resolved by the precedence table; in this example, the ( . )++ operator acts only on y[i] by the precedence rules but binding levels alone do not indicate the timing of the postfix ++ (the ( . )++ operator acts only after y[i] is evaluated in the expression).

Many of the operators containing multi-character sequences are given "names" built from the operator name of each character. For example, += and -= are often called plus equal(s) and minus equal(s), instead of the more verbose "assignment by addition" and "assignment by subtraction". The binding of operators in C and C++ is specified (in the corresponding Standards) by a factored language grammar, rather than a precedence table. This creates some subtle conflicts. For example, in C, the syntax for a conditional expression is: