On 2018-02-06 23:49:42 +0000, Peter T. Breuer wrote: > An interesting new theory, if late to the party. You now say that the > phrase "the usual arithmetic conversions" (6.3.1.8) must be present in > the subsection relating to the operator? This is implied by what is said at the beginning of 6.3 (which 6.3.1.8 belongs to): "Several operators convert operand values from one type to another ^^^^^^^ automatically." "Several", not "All". And 2 sentences later: "The list in 6.3.1.8 summarizes the conversions performed by most ordinary operators;" ^^^^ "most", not "all". So, you may wonder: Where do I get more detailed information about when this is done? The answer is at the end of the sentence: "it is supplemented as required by the discussion of each operator in 6.5." So it says that you need to look at 6.5, which is... that: > Ingenious, and I'll look at that as a possibility. Let's test. > According to the index, the phrase occurs in > > usual arithmetic conversions, 6.3.1.8 [defn], 6.5.5, 6.5.6, > 6.5.8, 6.5.9, 6.5.10, 6.5.11, 6.5.12, 6.5.15 > > 6.5.5 = multiplicative ops (* / %) > 6.5.6 = additive ops (+ -) > 6.5.8 = order relations (> < <= >=) > 6.5.9 = equals relns > 6.5.10= bitwise & > 6.5.11= bitwise ^ > 6.5.12= bitwise | > 6.5.15= ternery op ?: > > That looks plausible. 6.5.7 (>> and <<) is about all that's missing. Now, aren't you eventually convinced? Note that 6.3.1.8 also says: "Many operators...". "Many", not "All". -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
