need C++ programming code in visual studio

[OReubens]

Now that's what I call real sneaky where l is already defined in outer block!

It works, but it's very confusing, especially if you end up finding stuff like this in "production code" you're evaluating.
With classes it can even get worse when a base class defines a member, and a derived class defines another member with the same name, and then you have virtuals all over the place.

You even got an octal comparison on the first if just for a change which only fails when all the required rows have been output.

Not many people know octal notation is even part of the C++ language. Then they get into trouble when they prefix numbers with a 0 for some weird reason (to keep tables aligned is a common reason).

Quite excited about C++14 finally offering binary literals. For a language (C) that is "close to the machine", it's amazing this wasn't in from the start, and that it has taken so long to add it.




The 0&')' is not the 'bit of code that does nothing' though, since this obviously DOES do something depending on the value of l. :-)

[2kaud]

Quite excited about C++14 finally offering binary literals. For a language (C) that is "close to the machine", it's amazing this wasn't in from the start, and that it has taken so long to add it.

People who do 'bit twiddling' probably do it in either octal or hex. When I was doing PDP-11 assembler programming many, many moons ago using octal become second nature.

char('#'^((--l>>8)&')'))

oh you ******* generating the LF from the xor when l goes negative!

Having a statement of 0 in the first if obviously does nothing and can be removed.

It works, but it's very confusing, especially if you end up finding stuff like this in "production code" you're evaluating.
With classes it can even get worse when a base class defines a member, and a derived class defines another member with the same name, and then you have virtuals all over the place.

What programmer in their right mind produces production code like this? Its one thing doing a bit of this for 'fun' or to confuse 'newbies' but it's totally different doing this sort of thing in production.

[OReubens]

oh you ******* generating the LF from the xor when l goes negative!

It's the sort of bit-twiddling using-side-effect-as-result type stuff you find in some of the better bits of assembly (preferably with comments).

Having a statement of 0 in the first if obviously does nothing and can be removed.

the 0; does nothing, but removing it will fail to compile, so in that respect, your answer is incorrect.

I'm talking about a bunch of code you can just remove entirely without affecting the runtime results at all.

What programmer in their right mind produces production code like this? Its one thing doing a bit of this for 'fun' or to confuse 'newbies' but it's totally different doing this sort of thing in production.

You would be surprised at the stuff I have found in production code... even production code of "big name" company flagship products. ;-)

[2kaud]

It's the sort of bit-twiddling using-side-effect-as-result type stuff you find in some of the better bits of assembly (preferably with comments).

Yeah - I gave up assembly programming over 25 years ago! c/c++ is so much better!

the 0; does nothing, but removing it will fail to compile, so in that respect, your answer is incorrect.

I didn't say remove the ; - just the 0. Removing the 0 and leaving the ; is syntactically correct.

if (++l-013) 0; else goto elsewhere;

can be replaced with

if (++l-013)

as the elsewhere label is immediately following the true condition block. The elsewhere: label can then also be removed - but you get rid of the 'gotos' then!