Parenthesis

[Wolven]

== Quote from Steve Horne (stephenwantshornenospam100 at aol.com)'s article
> Trying to get the best of both worlds risks bringing in a whole bunch
> of new problems...
>   if a == b        //  fine
>   {
>     ...
>   }
>   if a == b return c;  //  errm - well...
>   if a == b *c++;       //  aaarrrggghhh!!!

Forgive me for my ignorance (I've never programmed in C), but what isn't clear
about those statements?

>   if a == b return c;  //  errm - well...
This one seems perfectly clear to me.  Maybe I'm reading it wrong.  To me, it
says; if a equals b then return and pass back c.  Is that not correct?

>   if a == b *c++;       //  aaarrrggghhh!!!
Likewise, this one says; if a is equal to b, add one to... pointer c?  Although
I'm not positive of the meaning of the *, everything else seems crystal clear.
Again, am I not reading it correctly?  Other than my uncertainty over the *, I
don't see any ambiguity in those statements...  or any reason why C(++)
programmers don't like them.  But since I'm not a C(++) programmer, perhaps
there's something unclear about those statements that I'm just not recognizing.

As for the a = b + c * d  statement...  The only thing I need to know is, Does the
language use the standard arithmetic precedence?  If it does, then the statement
means a = b + (c * d)  otherwise I'd just use standard left to right evaluation...
 i.e. a = (b + c) * d.  Other than a quick check of the language reference (which
I SHOULD only need to do once  ) to see how it handles arithmetic precedence (or
not) where's the ambiguity?

By the way, I'm not suggesting that D should be modified to use this style of
syntax.  I understand completely that it is INTENTIONALLY "C like" to make it
easy(er) for C(++) programmers to adapt to.  So please don't take my comments as
arguing for any change.  I'm just trying to understand WHY C(++) programmers find
statements that seem perfectly clear  to me, confusing.