Is the "missing semicolon" error really required? Why not treat it as a warning?
When I compile this code
int f = 1
int h=2;
the compiler intelligently tells me that where I am missing it. But to me it's like - "If you know it, just treat it as if it's there and go ahead. (Later I can fix the warning.)
int sdf = 1, df=2;
sdf=1 df =2
Even for this code, it behaves the same. That is, even if multiple statements (without ;) are in the same line, the compiler knows.
So, why not just remove this requirement? Why not behave like Python, Visual Basic, etc.
Summary of discussion
Two examples/instances were missing, and a semi-colon would actually cause a problem.
1.
return
(a+b)
This was presented as one of the worst aspects of JavaScript. But, in this scenario, semicolon insertion is a problem for JavaScript, but not
for C++. In C++, you will get another error if ; insertion is done after return. That is, a missing return value.
2
int *y;
int f = 1
*y = 2;
For this I guess, there is no better way than to introduce as statement separator, that is, a semicolon.
It's very good that the C++ compiler doesn't do this. One of the worst aspects of JavaScript is the semicolon insertion. Picture this:
return
(a + b);
The C++ compiler will happily continue on the next line as expected, while a language that "inserts" semicolons, like JavaScript, will treat it as "return;" and miss out the "(a + b);".
Instead of rely on compiler error-fixing, make it a habit to use semicolons.
There are many cases where a semicolon is needed.
What if you had:
int *y;
int f = 1
*y = 2;
This would be parsed as
int *y;
int f = 1 * y = 2;
So without the semicolons it is ambiguous.
First, this is only a small example; are you sure the compiler can intelligently tell you what's wrong for more complex code? For any piece of code? Could all compilers intelligently recognize this in the same way, so that a piece of C++ code could be guaranteed portable with missing semicolons?
Second, C++ was created more than a decade ago when computing resources aren't nearly what they are now. Even today, builds can take a considerable amount of time. Semicolons help to clearly demarcate different commands (for the user and for the compiler!) and assist both the programmer and the compiler in understanding what's happening.
; is for the programmer's convenience. If the line of code is very long then we can press enter and go to second line because we have ; for line separator. It is programming conventions. There must be a line separator.
Having semi-colons (or line breaks, pick one) makes the compiler vastly simpler and error messages more readable.
But contrary to what other people have said, neither form of delimiters (as an absolute) is strictly necessary.
Consider, for example, Haskell, which doesn’t have either. Even the current version of VB allows line breaks in many places inside a statement, as does Python. Neither requires line continuations in many places.
For example, VB now allows the following code:
Dim result = From element in collection
Where element < threshold
Select element
No statement delimiters, no line continuations, and yet no ambiguities whatsoever.
Theoretically, this could be driven much further. All ambiguities can be eliminated (again, look at Haskell) by introducing some rules. But again, this makes the parser much more complicated (it has to be context sensitive in a lot of places, e.g. your return example, which cannot be resolved without first knowing the return type of the function). And again, it makes it much harder to output meaningful diagnostics since an erroneous line break could mean any of several things so the compiler cannot know which error the user has made, and not even where the error was made.
In C programs semicolons are statement terminators, not separators. You might want to read this fun article.
+1 to you both.
The semi-colon is a command line delimiter, unlike VB, python etc. C and C++ ignore white space within lines of code including carriage returns! This was originally because at inception of C computer monitors could only cope with 80 characters of text and as C++ is based on the C specification it followed suit.
I could post up the question "Why must I keep getting errors about missing \ characters in VB when I try and write code over several lines, surely if VB knows of the problem it can insert it?"
Auto insertion as has already been pointed out could be a nightmare, especially on code that wraps onto a second line.
I won't extend much of the need for semi-colon vs line continuation characters, both have advantages and disadvantages and in the end it's a simple language design choice (even though it affects all the users).
I am more worried about the suggestion for the compiler to fix the code.
If you have ever seen a marvelous tool (such as... hum let's pick up a merge tool) and the way it does its automated work, you would be very glad indeed that the compiler did not modify the code. Ultimately if the compiler knew how to fix the code, then it would mean it knew your intent, and thought transmission has not been implemented yet.
As for the warning ? Any programmer worth its salt knows that warnings should be treated as errors (and compilation stopped) so what would be the advantage ?
int sdf = 1,df=2;
sdf=1 df =2
I think the general problem is that without the semicolon there's no telling what the programmer could have actually have meant (e.g may-be the second line was intended as sdf = 1 + df - 2; with serious typos). Something like this might well result from completely arbitrary typos and have any intended meaning, wherefore it might not be such a good idea after all to have the compiler silently "correct" errors.
You may also have noticed that you often get "expected semicolon" where the real problem is not a lack of a semicolon but something completely different instead. Imagine a malformed expression that the compiler could make sense out of by silently going and inserting semicolons.
The semicolon may seem redundant but it is a simple way for the programmer to confirm "yes, that was my intention".
Also, warnings instead of compiler errors are too weak. People compile code with warnings off, ignore warnings they get, and AFAIK the standard never prescribes what the compiler must warn about.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Okay, we know that the following two lines are equivalent -
(0 == i)
(i == 0)
Also, the first method was encouraged in the past because that would have allowed the compiler to give an error message if you accidentally used '=' instead of '=='.
My question is - in today's generation of pretty slick IDE's and intelligent compilers, do you still recommend the first method?
In particular, this question popped into my mind when I saw the following code -
if(DialogResult.OK == MessageBox.Show("Message")) ...
In my opinion, I would never recommend the above. Any second opinions?
I prefer the second one, (i == 0), because it feel much more natural when reading it. You ask people, "Are you 21 or older?", not, "Is 21 less than or equal to your age?"
It doesn't matter in C# if you put the variable first or last, because assignments don't evaluate to a bool (or something castable to bool) so the compiler catches any errors like "if (i = 0) EntireCompanyData.Delete()"
So, in the C# world at least, its a matter of style rather than desperation. And putting the variable last is unnatural to english speakers. Therefore, for more readable code, variable first.
If you have a list of ifs that can't be represented well by a switch (because of a language limitation, maybe), then I'd rather see:
if (InterstingValue1 == foo) { } else
if (InterstingValue2 == foo) { } else
if (InterstingValue3 == foo) { }
because it allows you to quickly see which are the important values you need to check.
In particular, in Java I find it useful to do:
if ("SomeValue".equals(someString)) {
}
because someString may be null, and in this way you'll never get a NullPointerException. The same applies if you are comparing constants that you know will never be null against objects that may be null.
(0 == i)
I will always pick this one. It is true that most compilers today do not allow the assigment of a variable in a conditional statement, but the truth is that some do. In programming for the web today, I have to use myriad of langauges on a system. By using 0 == i, I always know that the conditional statement will be correct, and I am not relying on the compiler/interpreter to catch my mistake for me. Now if I have to jump from C# to C++, or JavaScript I know that I am not going to have to track down assignment errors in conditional statements in my code. For something this small and to have it save that amount of time, it's a no brainer.
I used to be convinced that the more readable option (i == 0) was the better way to go with.
Then we had a production bug slip through (not mine thankfully), where the problem was a ($var = SOME_CONSTANT) type bug. Clients started getting email that was meant for other clients. Sensitive type data as well.
You can argue that Q/A should have caught it, but they didn't, that's a different story.
Since that day I've always pushed for the (0 == i) version. It basically removes the problem. It feels unnatural, so you pay attention, so you don't make the mistake. There's simply no way to get it wrong here.
It's also a lot easier to catch that someone didn't reverse the if statement in a code review than it is that someone accidentally assigned a value in an if. If the format is part of the coding standards, people look for it. People don't typically debug code during code reviews, and the eye seems to scan over a (i = 0) vs an (i == 0).
I'm also a much bigger fan of the java "Constant String".equals(dynamicString), no null pointer exceptions is a good thing.
You know, I always use the if (i == 0) format of the conditional and my reason for doing this is that I write most of my code in C# (which would flag the other one anyway) and I do a test-first approach to my development and my tests would generally catch this mistake anyhow.
I've worked in shops where they tried to enforce the 0==i format but I found it awkward to write, awkward to remember and it simply ended up being fodder for the code reviewers who were looking for low-hanging fruit.
Actually, the DialogResult example is a place where I WOULD recommend that style. It places the important part of the if() toward the left were it can be seen. If it's is on the right and the MessageBox have more parameters (which is likely), you might have to scroll right to see it.
OTOH, I never saw much use in the "(0 == i) " style. If you could remember to put the constant first, you can remember to use two equals signs,
I'm trying always use 1st case (0==i), and this saved my life a few times!
I think it's just a matter of style. And it does help with accidentally using assignment operator.
I absolutely wouldn't ask the programmer to grow up though.
I prefer (i == 0), but I still sort of make a "rule" for myself to do (0 == i), and then break it every time.
"Eh?", you think.
Well, if I'm making a concious decision to put an lvalue on the left, then I'm paying enough attention to what I'm typing to notice if I type "=" for "==". I hope. In C/C++ I generally use -Wall for my own code, which generates a warning on gcc for most "=" for "==" errors anyway. I don't recall seeing that warning recently, perhaps because the longer I program the more reflexively paranoid I am about errors I've made before...
if(DialogResult.OK == MessageBox.Show("Message"))
seems misguided to me. The point of the trick is to avoid accidentally assigning to something.
But who is to say whether DialogResult.OK is more, or less likely to evaluate to an assignable type than MessageBox.Show("Message")? In Java a method call can't possibly be assignable, whereas a field might not be final. So if you're worried about typing = for ==, it should actually be the other way around in Java for this example. In C++ either, neither or both could be assignable.
(0==i) is only useful because you know for absolute certain that a numeric literal is never assignable, whereas i just might be.
When both sides of your comparison are assignable you can't protect yourself from accidental assignment in this way, and that goes for when you don't know which is assignable without looking it up. There's no magic trick that says "if you put them the counter-intuitive way around, you'll be safe". Although I suppose it draws attention to the issue, in the same way as my "always break the rule" rule.
I use (i == 0) for the simple reason that it reads better. It makes a very smooth flow in my head. When you read through the code back to yourself for debugging or other purposes, it simply flows like reading a book and just makes more sense.
My company has just dropped the requirement to do if (0 == i) from its coding standards. I can see how it makes a lot of sense but in practice it just seems backwards. It is a bit of a shame that by default a C compiler probably won't give you a warning about if (i = 0).
Third option - disallow assignment inside conditionals entirely:
In high reliability situations, you are not allowed (without good explanation in the comments preceeding) to assign a variable in a conditional statement - it eliminates this question entirely because you either turn it off at the compiler or with LINT and only under very controlled situations are you allowed to use it.
Keep in mind that generally the same code is generated whether the assignment occurs inside the conditional or outside - it's simply a shortcut to reduce the number of lines of code. There are always exceptions to the rule, but it never has to be in the conditional - you can always write your way out of that if you need to.
So another option is merely to disallow such statements, and where needed use the comments to turn off the LINT checking for this common error.
-Adam
I'd say that (i == 0) would sound more natural if you attempted to phrase a line in plain (and ambiguous) english. It really depends on the coding style of the programmer or the standards they are required to adhere to though.
Personally I don't like (1) and always do (2), however that reverses for readability when dealing with dialog boxes and other methods that can be extra long. It doesn't look bad how it is not, but if you expand out the MessageBox to it's full length. You have to scroll all the way right to figure out what kind of result you are returning.
So while I agree with your assertions of the simplistic comparison of value types, I don't necessarily think it should be the rule for things like message boxes.
both are equal, though i would prefer the 0==i variant slightly.
when comparing strings, it is more error-prone to compare "MyString".equals(getDynamicString())
since, getDynamicString() might return null.
to be more conststent, write 0==i
Well, it depends on the language and the compiler in question. Context is everything.
In Java and C#, the "assignment instead of comparison" typo ends up with invalid code apart from the very rare situation where you're comparing two Boolean values.
I can understand why one might want to use the "safe" form in C/C++ - but frankly, most C/C++ compilers will warn you if you make the typo anyway. If you're using a compiler which doesn't, you should ask yourself why :)
The second form (variable then constant) is more readable in my view - so anywhere that it's definitely not going to cause a problem, I use it.
Rule 0 for all coding standards should be "write code that can be read easily by another human." For that reason I go with (most-rapidly-changing value) test-against (less-rapidly-changing-value, or constant), i.e "i == 0" in this case.
Even where this technique is useful, the rule should be "avoid putting an lvalue on the left of the comparison", rather than the "always put any constant on the left", which is how it's usually interpreted - for example, there is nothing to be gained from writing
if (DateClass.SATURDAY == dateObject.getDayOfWeek())
if getDayOfWeek() is returning a constant (and therefore not an lvalue) anyway!
I'm lucky (in this respect, at least) in that these days in that I'm mostly coding in Java and, as has been mentioned, if (someInt = 0) won't compile.
The caveat about comparing two booleans is a bit of a red-herring, as most of the time you're either comparing two boolean variables (in which case swapping them round doesn't help) or testing whether a flag is set, and woe-betide-you if I catch you comparing anything explicitly with true or false in your conditionals! Grrrr!
In C, yes, but you should already have turned on all warnings and be compiling warning-free, and many C compilers will help you avoid the problem.
I rarely see much benefit from a readability POV.
Code readability is one of the most important things for code larger than a few hundred lines, and definitely i == 0 reads much easier than the reverse
Maybe not an answer to your question.
I try to use === (checking for identical) instead of equality. This way no type conversion is done and it forces the programmer do make sure the right type is passed,
You are right that placing the important component first helps readability, as readers tend to browse the left column primarily, and putting important information there helps ensure it will be noticed.
However, never talk down to a co-worker, and implying that would be your action even in jest will not get you high marks here.
I always go with the second method. In C#, writing
if (i = 0) {
}
results in a compiler error (cannot convert int to bool) anyway, so that you could make a mistake is not actually an issue. If you test a bool, the compiler is still issuing a warning and you shouldn't compare a bool to true or false. Now you know why.
I personally prefer the use of variable-operand-value format in part because I have been using it so long that it feels "natural" and in part because it seems to the predominate convention. There are some languages that make use of assignment statements such as the following:
:1 -> x
So in the context of those languages it can become quite confusing to see the following even if it is valid:
:if(1=x)
So that is something to consider as well. I do agree with the message box response being one scenario where using a value-operand-variable format works better from a readability stand point, but if you are looking for constancy then you should forgo its use.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. There is no reason to decrease code readability (if (0 == i), what? how can the value of 0 change?) to catch something that any C compiler written in the last twenty years can catch automatically.
Yes, I know, most C and C++ compilers don't turn this on by default. Look up the proper switch to turn it on. There is no excuse for not knowing your tools.
It really gets on my nerves when I see it creeping into other languages (C#,Python) which would normally flag it anyway!
I believe the only factor to ever force one over the other is if the tool chain does not provide warnings to catch assignments in expressions. My preference as a developer is irrelevant. An expression is better served by presenting business logic clearly. If (0 == i) is more suitable than (i == 0) I will choose it. If not I will choose the other.
Many constants in expressions are represented by symbolic names. Some style guides also limit the parts of speech that can be used for identifiers. I use these as a guide to help shape how the expression reads. If the resulting expression reads loosely like pseudo code then I'm usually satisfied. I just let the expression express itself and If I'm wrong it'll usually get caught in a peer review.
We might go on and on about how good our IDEs have gotten, but I'm still shocked by the number of people who turn the warning levels on their IDE down.
Hence, for me, it's always better to ask people to use (0 == i), as you never know, which programmer is doing what.
It's better to be "safe than sorry"
if(DialogResult.OK == MessageBox.Show("Message")) ...
I would always recommend writing the comparison this way. If the result of MessageBox.Show("Message") can possibly be null, then you risk a NPE/NRE if the comparison is the other way around.
Mathematical and logical operations aren't reflexive in a world that includes NULLs.
I'm trying to make a parser for a made-up programming language. I'm now at the part of the exercise where we're required to make sure the parser's output is a conversion in C of the input.
So things like...
STARTMAIN a=b+2; return a ENDMAIN
...must become...
int main () { a=b+2; return a; }
So far so good, almost. The exercise also requires that in the same time, as we convert, we have to add proper indentation and (as I had to learn the hard way last year) newlines.
The obvious part is that each time a { opens, you increase a counter and then add the appropriate tabs on each new line. However, closing brackets ('}') are a different story as you can't detect them before hand, and once you've parsed them, you can't just put them a tab to the left by removing the last tab printed.
Is there a solution to this, and/or a consistent way of checking and adding indentation?
Well, you've now discovered one reason why people do not always bother to format generated output neatly; it is relatively hard to do so.
Indeed, one way to deal with the problem is to provide an official formatter for the language. Google's Go programming language comes with the 'gofmt' program to encourage the official format. C does not have such a standard, hence the religious wars over the placement of braces, but it does have programs such as indent which can in fact format the code neatly for you.
The trick is not to output anything on a line until you know how many tabs to output. So, on a line with a close brace, you decrement the indent counter (making sure it never goes negative) and only then do you output the leading tabs and the following brace.
Note that some parts of C require a semi-colon (or comma) after the close brace (think initializers and structure definitions); others do not (think statement blocks).
This question is inspired by this question, which features the following code snippet.
int s;
if((s = foo()) == ERROR)
print_error();
I find this style hard to read and prone to error (as the original question demonstrates -- it was prompted by missing parentheses around the assignment). I would instead write the following, which is actually shorter in terms of characters.
int s = foo();
if(s == ERROR)
print_error();
This is not the first time I've seen this idiom though, and I'm guessing there are reasons (perhaps historical) for it being so often used. What are those reasons?
I think it's for hysterical reasons, that early compilers were not so smart at optimizing. By putting it on one line as a single expression, it gives the compiler a hint that the same value fetched from foo() can be tested rather than specifically loading the value from s.
I prefer the clarity of your second example, with the assignment and test done later. A modern compiler will have no trouble optimizing this into registers, avoiding unnecessary loads from memory store.
When you are writing a loop, it is sometimes desirable to use the first form, as in this famous example from K&R:
int c;
while ((c = getchar()) != EOF) {
/* stuff */
}
There is no elegant "second-form" way of writing this without a repetition:
int c = getchar();
while (c != EOF) {
/* stuff */
c = getchar();
}
Or:
int c;
for (c = getchar(); c != EOF; c = getchar()) {
/* stuff */
}
Now that the assignment to c is repeated, the code is more error-prone, because one has to keep both the statements in sync.
So one has to be able to learn to read and write the first form easily. And given that, it seems logical to use the same form in if conditions as well.
I tend to use the first form mostly because I find it easy to read—as someone else said, it couples the function call and the return value test much more closely.
I make a conscious attempt at combining the two whenever possible. The "penalty" in size isn't enough to overcome the advantage in clarity, IMO.
The advantage in clarity comes from one fact: for a function like this, you should always think of calling the function and testing the return value as a single action that cannot be broken into two parts ("atomic", if you will). You should never call such a function without immediately testing its return value.
Separating the two (at all) leads to a much greater likelihood that you'll sometimes skip checking the return value completely. Other times, you'll accidentally insert some code between the call and the test of the return value that actually depends on that function having succeeded. If you always combine it all into a single statement, it (nearly) eliminates any possibility of falling into these traps.
I would always go for the second. It's easier to read, there's no danger of omitting the parentheses around the assignment and it is easier to step through with a debugger.
I often find the separation of the assignment out into a different line makes debugger watch or "locals" windows behave better vis-a-vis the presence and correct value of "s", at least in non-optimized builds.
It also allows the use of step-over separately on the assignment and test lines (again, in non-optimized builds), which can be helpful if you don't want to go mucking around in disassembly or mixed view.
YMMV per compiler and debugger and for optimized builds, of course.
I personally prefer for assignments and tests to be on different lines. It is less syntactically complicated, less error prone, and more easily understood. It also allows the compiler to give you more precise error/warning locations and often makes debugging easier.
It also allows me to more easily do things like:
int rc = function();
DEBUG_PRINT(rc);
if (rc == ERROR) {
recover_from_error();
} else {
keep_on_going(rc);
}
I prefer this style so much that in the case of loops I would rather:
while (1) {
int rc = function();
if (rc == ERROR) {
break;
}
keep_on_going(rc);
}
than do the assignment in the while conditional. I really don't like for my tests to have side-effects.
I often prefer the first form. I couldn't say exactly why, but it has something to do with the semantic involved.
The second style feels to me more like 2 separate operations. Call the function and then do something with the result, 2 different things. In the first style it's one logical unit. Call the function, save the temprary result and eventually handle the error case.
I know it's pretty vague and far from being completely rational, so I will use one or the other depending on the importance of the saved variable or the test case.
I believe that clarity should always prime over optimizations or "simplifications" based only on the amount of characters typed. This belief has stopped me from making many silly mistakes.
Separating the assignement and the comparison makes both clearer and so less error-prone, even if the duplication of the comparison might introduce a mistake once in a while. Among other things, parentheses become quickly hard to distinguish and keeping everything on one line introduces more parentheses. Also, splitting it up limits statements to doing only one of either fetching a value or assigning one.
However, if you expect people who will read your code to be more comfortable using the one-line idiom, then it is wide-spread enough not to cause any problems for most programmers. C programmers will definately be aware of it, even those that might find it awkward.
The C++ comma operator is used to chain individual expressions, yielding the value of the last executed expression as the result.
For example the skeleton code (6 statements, 6 expressions):
step1;
step2;
if (condition)
step3;
return step4;
else
return step5;
May be rewritten to: (1 statement, 6 expressions)
return step1,
step2,
condition?
step3, step4 :
step5;
I noticed that it is not possible to perform step-by-step debugging of such code, as the expression chain seems to be executed as a whole. Does it means that the compiler is able to perform special optimizations which are not possible with the traditional statement approach (specially if the steps are const or inline)?
Note: I'm not talking about the coding style merit of that way of expressing sequence of expressions! Just about the possible optimisations allowed by replacing statements by expressions.
Most compilers will break your code down into "basic blocks", which are stretches of code with no jumps/branches in or out. Optimisations will be performed on a graph of these blocks: that graph captures all the control flow in the function. The basic blocks are equivalent in your two versions of the code, so I doubt that you'd get different optimisations. That the basic blocks are the same isn't entirely obvious: it relies on the fact that the control flow between the steps is the same in both cases, and so are the sequence points. The most plausible difference is that you might find in the second case there is only one block including a "return", and in the first case there are two. The blocks are still equivalent, since the optimiser can replace two blocks that "do the same thing" with one block that is jumped to from two different places. That's a very common optimisation.
It's possible, of course, that a particular compiler doesn't ignore or eliminate the differences between your two functions when optimising. But there's really no way of saying whether any differences would make the result faster or slower, without examining what that compiler is doing. In short there's no difference between the possible optimisations, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no difference between the actual optimisations.
The reason you can't single-step your second version of the code is just down to how the debugger works, not the compiler. Single-step usually means, "run to the next statement", so if you break your code into multiple statements, you can more easily debug each one. Otherwise, if your debugger has an assembly view, then in the second case you could switch to that and single-step the assembly, allowing you to see how it progresses. Or if any of your steps involve function calls, then you may be able to "do the hokey-cokey", by repeatedly doing "step in, step out" of the functions, and separate them that way.
Using the comma operator neither promotes nor hinders optimization in any circumstances I'm aware of, because the C++ standard guarantee is only that evaluation will be in left-to-right order, not that statement execution necessarily will be. (This is the same guarantee you get with statement line order.)
What it is likely to do, though, is turn your code into a confusing mess, since many programmers are unaware that the comma-as-operator even exists, and are apt to confuse it with commas used as parameter separators. (Want to really make your code unreadable? Call a function like my_func((++i, y), x).)
The "best" use of the comma operator I've seen is to work with multiple variables in the iteration statement of a for loop:
for (int i = 0, j = 0;
i < 10 && j < 12;
i += j, ++j) // each time through the loop we're tinkering with BOTH i and j
{
}
Very unlikely IMHO. The thing get's compiled down to assembler/machine code, then further low-level optimizations are done, so it probably turns out to the same thing.
OTOH, if the comma operator is overloaded, the game changes completely. But I'm sure you know that. ;)
The obligatory list:
Don't worry about rewriting almost equivalent code to gain performance
If you have a perf-problem, profile to see what the problem is
If you can't get it faster by algorithmic ops, look at the disassembly and see that the compiler does what you intended
If not, ask here and post source and disassembly for both versions. :)
I was working with a new C++ developer a while back when he asked the question: "Why can't variable names start with numbers?"
I couldn't come up with an answer except that some numbers can have text in them (123456L, 123456U) and that wouldn't be possible if the compilers were thinking everything with some amount of alpha characters was a variable name.
Was that the right answer? Are there any more reasons?
string 2BeOrNot2Be = "that is the question"; // Why won't this compile?
Because then a string of digits would be a valid identifier as well as a valid number.
int 17 = 497;
int 42 = 6 * 9;
String 1111 = "Totally text";
Well think about this:
int 2d = 42;
double a = 2d;
What is a? 2.0? or 42?
Hint, if you don't get it, d after a number means the number before it is a double literal
It's a convention now, but it started out as a technical requirement.
In the old days, parsers of languages such as FORTRAN or BASIC did not require the uses of spaces. So, basically, the following are identical:
10 V1=100
20 PRINT V1
and
10V1=100
20PRINTV1
Now suppose that numeral prefixes were allowed. How would you interpret this?
101V=100
as
10 1V = 100
or as
101 V = 100
or as
1 01V = 100
So, this was made illegal.
Because backtracking is avoided in lexical analysis while compiling. A variable like:
Apple;
the compiler will know it's a identifier right away when it meets letter 'A'.
However a variable like:
123apple;
compiler won't be able to decide if it's a number or identifier until it hits 'a', and it needs backtracking as a result.
Compilers/parsers/lexical analyzers was a long, long time ago for me, but I think I remember there being difficulty in unambiguosly determining whether a numeric character in the compilation unit represented a literal or an identifier.
Languages where space is insignificant (like ALGOL and the original FORTRAN if I remember correctly) could not accept numbers to begin identifiers for that reason.
This goes way back - before special notations to denote storage or numeric base.
I agree it would be handy to allow identifiers to begin with a digit. One or two people have mentioned that you can get around this restriction by prepending an underscore to your identifier, but that's really ugly.
I think part of the problem comes from number literals such as 0xdeadbeef, which make it hard to come up with easy to remember rules for identifiers that can start with a digit. One way to do it might be to allow anything matching [A-Za-z_]+ that is NOT a keyword or number literal. The problem is that it would lead to weird things like 0xdeadpork being allowed, but not 0xdeadbeef. Ultimately, I think we should be fair to all meats :P.
When I was first learning C, I remember feeling the rules for variable names were arbitrary and restrictive. Worst of all, they were hard to remember, so I gave up trying to learn them. I just did what felt right, and it worked pretty well. Now that I've learned alot more, it doesn't seem so bad, and I finally got around to learning it right.
It's likely a decision that came for a few reasons, when you're parsing the token you only have to look at the first character to determine if it's an identifier or literal and then send it to the correct function for processing. So that's a performance optimization.
The other option would be to check if it's not a literal and leave the domain of identifiers to be the universe minus the literals. But to do this you would have to examine every character of every token to know how to classify it.
There is also the stylistic implications identifiers are supposed to be mnemonics so words are much easier to remember than numbers. When a lot of the original languages were being written setting the styles for the next few decades they weren't thinking about substituting "2" for "to".
Variable names cannot start with a digit, because it can cause some problems like below:
int a = 2;
int 2 = 5;
int c = 2 * a;
what is the value of c? is 4, or is 10!
another example:
float 5 = 25;
float b = 5.5;
is first 5 a number, or is an object (. operator)
There is a similar problem with second 5.
Maybe, there are some other reasons. So, we shouldn't use any digit in the beginnig of a variable name.
The restriction is arbitrary. Various Lisps permit symbol names to begin with numerals.
COBOL allows variables to begin with a digit.
Use of a digit to begin a variable name makes error checking during compilation or interpertation a lot more complicated.
Allowing use of variable names that began like a number would probably cause huge problems for the language designers. During source code parsing, whenever a compiler/interpreter encountered a token beginning with a digit where a variable name was expected, it would have to search through a huge, complicated set of rules to determine whether the token was really a variable, or an error. The added complexity added to the language parser may not justify this feature.
As far back as I can remember (about 40 years), I don't think that I have ever used a language that allowed use of a digit to begin variable names. I'm sure that this was done at least once. Maybe, someone here has actually seen this somewhere.
As several people have noticed, there is a lot of historical baggage about valid formats for variable names. And language designers are always influenced by what they know when they create new languages.
That said, pretty much all of the time a language doesn't allow variable names to begin with numbers is because those are the rules of the language design. Often it is because such a simple rule makes the parsing and lexing of the language vastly easier. Not all language designers know this is the real reason, though. Modern lexing tools help, because if you tried to define it as permissible, they will give you parsing conflicts.
OTOH, if your language has a uniquely identifiable character to herald variable names, it is possible to set it up for them to begin with a number. Similar rule variations can also be used to allow spaces in variable names. But the resulting language is likely to not to resemble any popular conventional language very much, if at all.
For an example of a fairly simple HTML templating language that does permit variables to begin with numbers and have embedded spaces, look at Qompose.
Because if you allowed keyword and identifier to begin with numberic characters, the lexer (part of the compiler) couldn't readily differentiate between the start of a numeric literal and a keyword without getting a whole lot more complicated (and slower).
C++ can't have it because the language designers made it a rule. If you were to create your own language, you could certainly allow it, but you would probably run into the same problems they did and decide not to allow it. Examples of variable names that would cause problems:
0x, 2d, 5555
One of the key problems about relaxing syntactic conventions is that it introduces cognitive dissonance into the coding process. How you think about your code could be deeply influenced by the lack of clarity this would introduce.
Wasn't it Dykstra who said that the "most important aspect of any tool is its effect on its user"?
The compiler has 7 phase as follows:
Lexical analysis
Syntax Analysis
Semantic Analysis
Intermediate Code Generation
Code Optimization
Code Generation
Symbol Table
Backtracking is avoided in the lexical analysis phase while compiling the piece of code. The variable like Apple, the compiler will know its an identifier right away when it meets letter ‘A’ character in the lexical Analysis phase. However, a variable like 123apple, the compiler won’t be able to decide if its a number or identifier until it hits ‘a’ and it needs backtracking to go in the lexical analysis phase to identify that it is a variable. But it is not supported in the compiler.
When you’re parsing the token you only have to look at the first character to determine if it’s an identifier or literal and then send it to the correct function for processing. So that’s a performance optimization.
Probably because it makes it easier for the human to tell whether it's a number or an identifier, and because of tradition. Having identifiers that could begin with a digit wouldn't complicate the lexical scans all that much.
Not all languages have forbidden identifiers beginning with a digit. In Forth, they could be numbers, and small integers were normally defined as Forth words (essentially identifiers), since it was faster to read "2" as a routine to push a 2 onto the stack than to recognize "2" as a number whose value was 2. (In processing input from the programmer or the disk block, the Forth system would split up the input according to spaces. It would try to look the token up in the dictionary to see if it was a defined word, and if not would attempt to translate it into a number, and if not would flag an error.)
Suppose you did allow symbol names to begin with numbers. Now suppose you want to name a variable 12345foobar. How would you differentiate this from 12345? It's actually not terribly difficult to do with a regular expression. The problem is actually one of performance. I can't really explain why this is in great detail, but it essentially boils down to the fact that differentiating 12345foobar from 12345 requires backtracking. This makes the regular expression non-deterministic.
There's a much better explanation of this here.
it is easy for a compiler to identify a variable using ASCII on memory location rather than number .
I think the simple answer is that it can, the restriction is language based. In C++ and many others it can't because the language doesn't support it. It's not built into the rules to allow that.
The question is akin to asking why can't the King move four spaces at a time in Chess? It's because in Chess that is an illegal move. Can it in another game sure. It just depends on the rules being played by.
Originally it was simply because it is easier to remember (you can give it more meaning) variable names as strings rather than numbers although numbers can be included within the string to enhance the meaning of the string or allow the use of the same variable name but have it designated as having a separate, but close meaning or context. For example loop1, loop2 etc would always let you know that you were in a loop and/or loop 2 was a loop within loop1.
Which would you prefer (has more meaning) as a variable: address or 1121298? Which is easier to remember?
However, if the language uses something to denote that it not just text or numbers (such as the $ in $address) it really shouldn't make a difference as that would tell the compiler that what follows is to be treated as a variable (in this case).
In any case it comes down to what the language designers want to use as the rules for their language.
The variable may be considered as a value also during compile time by the compiler
so the value may call the value again and again recursively
Backtracking is avoided in lexical analysis phase while compiling the piece of code. The variable like Apple; , the compiler will know its a identifier right away when it meets letter ‘A’ character in the lexical Analysis phase. However, a variable like 123apple; , compiler won’t be able to decide if its a number or identifier until it hits ‘a’ and it needs backtracking to go in the lexical analysis phase to identify that it is a variable. But it is not supported in compiler.
Reference
There could be nothing wrong with it when comes into declaring variable.but there is some ambiguity when it tries to use that variable somewhere else like this :
let 1 = "Hello world!"
print(1)
print(1)
print is a generic method that accepts all types of variable. so in that situation compiler does not know which (1) the programmer refers to : the 1 of integer value or the 1 that store a string value.
maybe better for compiler in this situation to allows to define something like that but when trying to use this ambiguous stuff, bring an error with correction capability to how gonna fix that error and clear this ambiguity.