Why does int i = 10; i / 0; compile, but 5 / 0 gives CS0020 - Division by constant zero? [duplicate]Why does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zeroCase insensitive 'Contains(string)'Why can't I unbox an int as a decimal?Curious null-coalescing operator custom implicit conversion behaviourIs there a reason for C#'s reuse of the variable in a foreach?Why does the C# compiler allow an explicit cast between IEnumerable<T> and TAlmostAnything?Int vs Double and divide by zero exceptionWhy does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zeroWhy not inherit from List<T>?Weird division by zero errorWhy do decimals give a compile time error on division by zero?
Travelling outside the UK without a passport
How do I find all files that end with a dot
C++ debug/print custom type with GDB : the case of nlohmann json library
Biological Blimps: Propulsion
GraphicsGrid with a Label for each Column and Row
Lowest total scrabble score
Open a doc from terminal, but not by its name
Offered money to buy a house, seller is asking for more to cover gap between their listing and mortgage owed
Delivering sarcasm
Does a 'pending' US visa application constitute a denial?
Why does the Sun have different day lengths, but not the gas giants?
Is it improper etiquette to ask your opponent what his/her rating is before the game?
How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character
What are the purposes of autoencoders?
Why is it that I can sometimes guess the next note?
Does an advisor owe his/her student anything? Will an advisor keep a PhD student only out of pity?
Why electric field inside a cavity of a non-conducting sphere not zero?
Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank
Non-trope happy ending?
Count the occurrence of each unique word in the file
Create all possible words using a set or letters
If a character has darkvision, can they see through an area of nonmagical darkness filled with lightly obscuring gas?
Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?
Fear of getting stuck on one programming language / technology that is not used in my country
Why does int i = 10; i / 0; compile, but 5 / 0 gives CS0020 - Division by constant zero? [duplicate]
Why does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zeroCase insensitive 'Contains(string)'Why can't I unbox an int as a decimal?Curious null-coalescing operator custom implicit conversion behaviourIs there a reason for C#'s reuse of the variable in a foreach?Why does the C# compiler allow an explicit cast between IEnumerable<T> and TAlmostAnything?Int vs Double and divide by zero exceptionWhy does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zeroWhy not inherit from List<T>?Weird division by zero errorWhy do decimals give a compile time error on division by zero?
This question already has an answer here:
Why does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zero
5 answers
Consider the following snippet:
int i = 5 / 0;
This gives compiler error CS0020: Division by constant zero, which is fine. However, the next snippet:
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
Compiles just fine.
Does someone know why? I see no reason why the compiler allows an integer variable to be divided by a zero integer constant.
c#
edited yesterday
meJustAndrew
3,15932452
asked yesterday
NickNick
2,1721215
marked as duplicate by Servy c#
Users with the c# badge can single-handedly close c# questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
yesterday
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
|
show 3 more comments
This question already has an answer here:
Why does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zero
5 answers
Consider the following snippet:
int i = 5 / 0;
This gives compiler error CS0020: Division by constant zero, which is fine. However, the next snippet:
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
Compiles just fine.
Does someone know why? I see no reason why the compiler allows an integer variable to be divided by a zero integer constant.
c#
edited yesterday
meJustAndrew
3,15932452
asked yesterday
NickNick
2,1721215
marked as duplicate by Servy c#
Users with the c# badge can single-handedly close c# questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
yesterday
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
4
I believe it is the difference between the compile time evaluation of the expression and the runtime one.
– meJustAndrew
yesterday
3
Isn't 5 / 0 a constant during compilation while i / 0 is not?
– Christian Ivicevic
yesterday
3
Two identical questions in a couple of minutes?
– Panagiotis Kanavos
yesterday
1
@PanagiotisKanavos. Yea, it too will probably get deleted before the homework has been turned in :D
– Charles May
yesterday
@PanagiotisKanavos yes we were discussing the issue outside Stack Overflow and decided to ask separately. My question is now deleted.
– Stilgar
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
This question already has an answer here:
Why does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zero
5 answers
Consider the following snippet:
int i = 5 / 0;
This gives compiler error CS0020: Division by constant zero, which is fine. However, the next snippet:
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
Compiles just fine.
Does someone know why? I see no reason why the compiler allows an integer variable to be divided by a zero integer constant.
c#
edited yesterday
meJustAndrew
3,15932452
asked yesterday
NickNick
2,1721215
This question already has an answer here:
Why does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zero
5 answers
Consider the following snippet:
int i = 5 / 0;
This gives compiler error CS0020: Division by constant zero, which is fine. However, the next snippet:
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
Compiles just fine.
Does someone know why? I see no reason why the compiler allows an integer variable to be divided by a zero integer constant.
This question already has an answer here:
Why does the compiler not show an error when we try to divide a variable by zero
5 answers
c#
c#
edited yesterday
meJustAndrew
3,15932452
asked yesterday
NickNick
2,1721215
edited yesterday
meJustAndrew
3,15932452
asked yesterday
NickNick
2,1721215
edited yesterday
meJustAndrew
3,15932452
edited yesterday
meJustAndrew
3,15932452
edited yesterday
meJustAndrew
3,15932452
3,15932452
asked yesterday
NickNick
2,1721215
asked yesterday
NickNick
2,1721215
asked yesterday
NickNick
2,1721215
2,1721215
marked as duplicate by Servy c#
Users with the c# badge can single-handedly close c# questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
yesterday
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Servy c#
Users with the c# badge can single-handedly close c# questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
yesterday
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
4
I believe it is the difference between the compile time evaluation of the expression and the runtime one.
– meJustAndrew
yesterday
3
Isn't 5 / 0 a constant during compilation while i / 0 is not?
– Christian Ivicevic
yesterday
3
Two identical questions in a couple of minutes?
– Panagiotis Kanavos
yesterday
1
@PanagiotisKanavos. Yea, it too will probably get deleted before the homework has been turned in :D
– Charles May
yesterday
@PanagiotisKanavos yes we were discussing the issue outside Stack Overflow and decided to ask separately. My question is now deleted.
– Stilgar
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
4
I believe it is the difference between the compile time evaluation of the expression and the runtime one.
– meJustAndrew
yesterday
3
Isn't 5 / 0 a constant during compilation while i / 0 is not?
– Christian Ivicevic
yesterday
3
Two identical questions in a couple of minutes?
– Panagiotis Kanavos
yesterday
1
@PanagiotisKanavos. Yea, it too will probably get deleted before the homework has been turned in :D
– Charles May
yesterday
@PanagiotisKanavos yes we were discussing the issue outside Stack Overflow and decided to ask separately. My question is now deleted.
– Stilgar
yesterday
4
4
I believe it is the difference between the compile time evaluation of the expression and the runtime one.
– meJustAndrew
yesterday
I believe it is the difference between the compile time evaluation of the expression and the runtime one.
– meJustAndrew
yesterday
3
3
Isn't 5 / 0 a constant during compilation while i / 0 is not?
– Christian Ivicevic
yesterday
Isn't 5 / 0 a constant during compilation while i / 0 is not?
– Christian Ivicevic
yesterday
3
3
Two identical questions in a couple of minutes?
– Panagiotis Kanavos
yesterday
Two identical questions in a couple of minutes?
– Panagiotis Kanavos
yesterday
1
1
@PanagiotisKanavos. Yea, it too will probably get deleted before the homework has been turned in :D
– Charles May
yesterday
@PanagiotisKanavos. Yea, it too will probably get deleted before the homework has been turned in :D
– Charles May
yesterday
@PanagiotisKanavos yes we were discussing the issue outside Stack Overflow and decided to ask separately. My question is now deleted.
– Stilgar
yesterday
@PanagiotisKanavos yes we were discussing the issue outside Stack Overflow and decided to ask separately. My question is now deleted.
– Stilgar
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
In the general case, the compiler has no reason to disallow division by zero (or any other number) at runtime.
Your first example, though, is a compile time constant, i.e. it's calculated by the compiler and replaced with the result of the evaluation. This is what the compiler's complaining about as it rightly doesn't know what integer value to put in place of 5/0.
answered yesterday
Philip CPhilip C
1,1722143
1
They could have made it so this case generates code to throw DBZ exception at runtime.
– Stilgar
yesterday
5
This doesn't hold foranyInt / 0: the compiler could know it's always illegal.
– Henk Holterman
yesterday
@HenkHolterman in what case is it not true for anyInt / 0?
– Stilgar
yesterday
3
@HenkHolterman: given C#'s highly flexible rules for implicit conversions and operator overloading, I suspect the very specific case of someone writing down a literalx / 0expression withxan integral type didn't warrant a special check to issue a warning/error for that (and only that). It just leaves non-constant expressions to the runtime, always.
– Jeroen Mostert
yesterday
2
@Stilgar I think it's one of those "where would you draw the line?" cases. Checking for division of an integral type by a constant integral zero is simple enough, but then do you check for zero in a locally assigned variable? A parameter? Given how unlikely it is that a developer is going to putx / 0directly in their code (and that they'll find it when they run the program), it's not worth the effort. In the compile-time case, the check is mandatory because it's not compilable as-is.
– Philip C
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
It is simply the difference between the compile time check and the runtime check. While
i = i / 0;
throws
System.DivideByZeroException: 'Attempted to divide by zero.'
the
i = 5 / 0;
gives a compilation error
Error CS0020 Division by constant zero.
The value of 5 / 0 is evaluated at compile time, this is what makes the difference between receiving an error and getting an exception.
EDIT:
Given the comments to the answers here, I will take some time to write an assumption of why the compiler works this way. The compiler was never intended to prevent division by zero of a variable. If you want to do it, you are allowed to, and you could work in some sneaky ways to get your program dividing by zero. What was the compiler supposed to do is just making some optimization when it can, by computing it advance some calculus and replace them with the resulting value. When it sees the division by zero, it just gives you an error as it can not compute it.
answered yesterday
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
3,15932452
1
We know what it does, we are wondering why it was made this way.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
Because of the compiler converts int i = 5 / 0; to a constant value , so it must calculate the value during compile time, which gives it an error.
But the code
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
is formally correct. It throws an exception and it is your decision and your intention to generate such an exception.
edited yesterday
IDarkCoder
346111
answered yesterday
Piotr StappPiotr Stapp
14.2k44890
They could have made it so both throw exception or both give an error but they decided not to. The question is why they chose this specific and slightly inconsistent behavior.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
same as everyone saying here.
This line here is compile time and since compiler doesn't know the answer of this.It is giving error
int i = 5 / 0;
where as this line is a run time check and its just a general mathematical calculation so compiler no reason to throw this as an error
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
answered yesterday
dark_3nergydark_3nergy
628
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In the general case, the compiler has no reason to disallow division by zero (or any other number) at runtime.
Your first example, though, is a compile time constant, i.e. it's calculated by the compiler and replaced with the result of the evaluation. This is what the compiler's complaining about as it rightly doesn't know what integer value to put in place of 5/0.
answered yesterday
Philip CPhilip C
1,1722143
1
They could have made it so this case generates code to throw DBZ exception at runtime.
– Stilgar
yesterday
5
This doesn't hold foranyInt / 0: the compiler could know it's always illegal.
– Henk Holterman
yesterday
@HenkHolterman in what case is it not true for anyInt / 0?
– Stilgar
yesterday
3
@HenkHolterman: given C#'s highly flexible rules for implicit conversions and operator overloading, I suspect the very specific case of someone writing down a literalx / 0expression withxan integral type didn't warrant a special check to issue a warning/error for that (and only that). It just leaves non-constant expressions to the runtime, always.
– Jeroen Mostert
yesterday
2
@Stilgar I think it's one of those "where would you draw the line?" cases. Checking for division of an integral type by a constant integral zero is simple enough, but then do you check for zero in a locally assigned variable? A parameter? Given how unlikely it is that a developer is going to putx / 0directly in their code (and that they'll find it when they run the program), it's not worth the effort. In the compile-time case, the check is mandatory because it's not compilable as-is.
– Philip C
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
In the general case, the compiler has no reason to disallow division by zero (or any other number) at runtime.
Your first example, though, is a compile time constant, i.e. it's calculated by the compiler and replaced with the result of the evaluation. This is what the compiler's complaining about as it rightly doesn't know what integer value to put in place of 5/0.
answered yesterday
Philip CPhilip C
1,1722143
1
They could have made it so this case generates code to throw DBZ exception at runtime.
– Stilgar
yesterday
5
This doesn't hold foranyInt / 0: the compiler could know it's always illegal.
– Henk Holterman
yesterday
@HenkHolterman in what case is it not true for anyInt / 0?
– Stilgar
yesterday
3
@HenkHolterman: given C#'s highly flexible rules for implicit conversions and operator overloading, I suspect the very specific case of someone writing down a literalx / 0expression withxan integral type didn't warrant a special check to issue a warning/error for that (and only that). It just leaves non-constant expressions to the runtime, always.
– Jeroen Mostert
yesterday
2
@Stilgar I think it's one of those "where would you draw the line?" cases. Checking for division of an integral type by a constant integral zero is simple enough, but then do you check for zero in a locally assigned variable? A parameter? Given how unlikely it is that a developer is going to putx / 0directly in their code (and that they'll find it when they run the program), it's not worth the effort. In the compile-time case, the check is mandatory because it's not compilable as-is.
– Philip C
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
In the general case, the compiler has no reason to disallow division by zero (or any other number) at runtime.
Your first example, though, is a compile time constant, i.e. it's calculated by the compiler and replaced with the result of the evaluation. This is what the compiler's complaining about as it rightly doesn't know what integer value to put in place of 5/0.
answered yesterday
Philip CPhilip C
1,1722143
In the general case, the compiler has no reason to disallow division by zero (or any other number) at runtime.
Your first example, though, is a compile time constant, i.e. it's calculated by the compiler and replaced with the result of the evaluation. This is what the compiler's complaining about as it rightly doesn't know what integer value to put in place of 5/0.
answered yesterday
Philip CPhilip C
1,1722143
answered yesterday
Philip CPhilip C
1,1722143
answered yesterday
Philip CPhilip C
1,1722143
answered yesterday
Philip CPhilip C
1,1722143
1,1722143
1
They could have made it so this case generates code to throw DBZ exception at runtime.
– Stilgar
yesterday
5
This doesn't hold foranyInt / 0: the compiler could know it's always illegal.
– Henk Holterman
yesterday
@HenkHolterman in what case is it not true for anyInt / 0?
– Stilgar
yesterday
3
@HenkHolterman: given C#'s highly flexible rules for implicit conversions and operator overloading, I suspect the very specific case of someone writing down a literalx / 0expression withxan integral type didn't warrant a special check to issue a warning/error for that (and only that). It just leaves non-constant expressions to the runtime, always.
– Jeroen Mostert
yesterday
2
@Stilgar I think it's one of those "where would you draw the line?" cases. Checking for division of an integral type by a constant integral zero is simple enough, but then do you check for zero in a locally assigned variable? A parameter? Given how unlikely it is that a developer is going to putx / 0directly in their code (and that they'll find it when they run the program), it's not worth the effort. In the compile-time case, the check is mandatory because it's not compilable as-is.
– Philip C
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
1
They could have made it so this case generates code to throw DBZ exception at runtime.
– Stilgar
yesterday
5
This doesn't hold foranyInt / 0: the compiler could know it's always illegal.
– Henk Holterman
yesterday
@HenkHolterman in what case is it not true for anyInt / 0?
– Stilgar
yesterday
3
@HenkHolterman: given C#'s highly flexible rules for implicit conversions and operator overloading, I suspect the very specific case of someone writing down a literalx / 0expression withxan integral type didn't warrant a special check to issue a warning/error for that (and only that). It just leaves non-constant expressions to the runtime, always.
– Jeroen Mostert
yesterday
2
@Stilgar I think it's one of those "where would you draw the line?" cases. Checking for division of an integral type by a constant integral zero is simple enough, but then do you check for zero in a locally assigned variable? A parameter? Given how unlikely it is that a developer is going to putx / 0directly in their code (and that they'll find it when they run the program), it's not worth the effort. In the compile-time case, the check is mandatory because it's not compilable as-is.
– Philip C
yesterday
1
1
They could have made it so this case generates code to throw DBZ exception at runtime.
– Stilgar
yesterday
They could have made it so this case generates code to throw DBZ exception at runtime.
– Stilgar
yesterday
5
5
This doesn't hold for
anyInt / 0 : the compiler could know it's always illegal.– Henk Holterman
yesterday
This doesn't hold for
anyInt / 0 : the compiler could know it's always illegal.– Henk Holterman
yesterday
@HenkHolterman in what case is it not true for anyInt / 0?
– Stilgar
yesterday
@HenkHolterman in what case is it not true for anyInt / 0?
– Stilgar
yesterday
3
3
@HenkHolterman: given C#'s highly flexible rules for implicit conversions and operator overloading, I suspect the very specific case of someone writing down a literal
x / 0 expression with x an integral type didn't warrant a special check to issue a warning/error for that (and only that). It just leaves non-constant expressions to the runtime, always.– Jeroen Mostert
yesterday
@HenkHolterman: given C#'s highly flexible rules for implicit conversions and operator overloading, I suspect the very specific case of someone writing down a literal
x / 0 expression with x an integral type didn't warrant a special check to issue a warning/error for that (and only that). It just leaves non-constant expressions to the runtime, always.– Jeroen Mostert
yesterday
2
2
@Stilgar I think it's one of those "where would you draw the line?" cases. Checking for division of an integral type by a constant integral zero is simple enough, but then do you check for zero in a locally assigned variable? A parameter? Given how unlikely it is that a developer is going to put
x / 0 directly in their code (and that they'll find it when they run the program), it's not worth the effort. In the compile-time case, the check is mandatory because it's not compilable as-is.– Philip C
yesterday
@Stilgar I think it's one of those "where would you draw the line?" cases. Checking for division of an integral type by a constant integral zero is simple enough, but then do you check for zero in a locally assigned variable? A parameter? Given how unlikely it is that a developer is going to put
x / 0 directly in their code (and that they'll find it when they run the program), it's not worth the effort. In the compile-time case, the check is mandatory because it's not compilable as-is.– Philip C
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
It is simply the difference between the compile time check and the runtime check. While
i = i / 0;
throws
System.DivideByZeroException: 'Attempted to divide by zero.'
the
i = 5 / 0;
gives a compilation error
Error CS0020 Division by constant zero.
The value of 5 / 0 is evaluated at compile time, this is what makes the difference between receiving an error and getting an exception.
EDIT:
Given the comments to the answers here, I will take some time to write an assumption of why the compiler works this way. The compiler was never intended to prevent division by zero of a variable. If you want to do it, you are allowed to, and you could work in some sneaky ways to get your program dividing by zero. What was the compiler supposed to do is just making some optimization when it can, by computing it advance some calculus and replace them with the resulting value. When it sees the division by zero, it just gives you an error as it can not compute it.
answered yesterday
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
3,15932452
1
We know what it does, we are wondering why it was made this way.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
It is simply the difference between the compile time check and the runtime check. While
i = i / 0;
throws
System.DivideByZeroException: 'Attempted to divide by zero.'
the
i = 5 / 0;
gives a compilation error
Error CS0020 Division by constant zero.
The value of 5 / 0 is evaluated at compile time, this is what makes the difference between receiving an error and getting an exception.
EDIT:
Given the comments to the answers here, I will take some time to write an assumption of why the compiler works this way. The compiler was never intended to prevent division by zero of a variable. If you want to do it, you are allowed to, and you could work in some sneaky ways to get your program dividing by zero. What was the compiler supposed to do is just making some optimization when it can, by computing it advance some calculus and replace them with the resulting value. When it sees the division by zero, it just gives you an error as it can not compute it.
answered yesterday
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
3,15932452
1
We know what it does, we are wondering why it was made this way.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
It is simply the difference between the compile time check and the runtime check. While
i = i / 0;
throws
System.DivideByZeroException: 'Attempted to divide by zero.'
the
i = 5 / 0;
gives a compilation error
Error CS0020 Division by constant zero.
The value of 5 / 0 is evaluated at compile time, this is what makes the difference between receiving an error and getting an exception.
EDIT:
Given the comments to the answers here, I will take some time to write an assumption of why the compiler works this way. The compiler was never intended to prevent division by zero of a variable. If you want to do it, you are allowed to, and you could work in some sneaky ways to get your program dividing by zero. What was the compiler supposed to do is just making some optimization when it can, by computing it advance some calculus and replace them with the resulting value. When it sees the division by zero, it just gives you an error as it can not compute it.
answered yesterday
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
3,15932452
It is simply the difference between the compile time check and the runtime check. While
i = i / 0;
throws
System.DivideByZeroException: 'Attempted to divide by zero.'
the
i = 5 / 0;
gives a compilation error
Error CS0020 Division by constant zero.
The value of 5 / 0 is evaluated at compile time, this is what makes the difference between receiving an error and getting an exception.
EDIT:
Given the comments to the answers here, I will take some time to write an assumption of why the compiler works this way. The compiler was never intended to prevent division by zero of a variable. If you want to do it, you are allowed to, and you could work in some sneaky ways to get your program dividing by zero. What was the compiler supposed to do is just making some optimization when it can, by computing it advance some calculus and replace them with the resulting value. When it sees the division by zero, it just gives you an error as it can not compute it.
answered yesterday
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
3,15932452
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
3,15932452
answered yesterday
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
3,15932452
answered yesterday
meJustAndrewmeJustAndrew
3,15932452
3,15932452
1
We know what it does, we are wondering why it was made this way.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
1
We know what it does, we are wondering why it was made this way.
– Stilgar
yesterday
1
1
We know what it does, we are wondering why it was made this way.
– Stilgar
yesterday
We know what it does, we are wondering why it was made this way.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
Because of the compiler converts int i = 5 / 0; to a constant value , so it must calculate the value during compile time, which gives it an error.
But the code
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
is formally correct. It throws an exception and it is your decision and your intention to generate such an exception.
edited yesterday
IDarkCoder
346111
answered yesterday
Piotr StappPiotr Stapp
14.2k44890
They could have made it so both throw exception or both give an error but they decided not to. The question is why they chose this specific and slightly inconsistent behavior.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
Because of the compiler converts int i = 5 / 0; to a constant value , so it must calculate the value during compile time, which gives it an error.
But the code
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
is formally correct. It throws an exception and it is your decision and your intention to generate such an exception.
edited yesterday
IDarkCoder
346111
answered yesterday
Piotr StappPiotr Stapp
14.2k44890
They could have made it so both throw exception or both give an error but they decided not to. The question is why they chose this specific and slightly inconsistent behavior.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
Because of the compiler converts int i = 5 / 0; to a constant value , so it must calculate the value during compile time, which gives it an error.
But the code
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
is formally correct. It throws an exception and it is your decision and your intention to generate such an exception.
edited yesterday
IDarkCoder
346111
answered yesterday
Piotr StappPiotr Stapp
14.2k44890
Because of the compiler converts int i = 5 / 0; to a constant value , so it must calculate the value during compile time, which gives it an error.
But the code
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
is formally correct. It throws an exception and it is your decision and your intention to generate such an exception.
edited yesterday
IDarkCoder
346111
answered yesterday
Piotr StappPiotr Stapp
14.2k44890
edited yesterday
IDarkCoder
346111
edited yesterday
IDarkCoder
346111
edited yesterday
IDarkCoder
346111
346111
answered yesterday
Piotr StappPiotr Stapp
14.2k44890
answered yesterday
Piotr StappPiotr Stapp
14.2k44890
answered yesterday
Piotr StappPiotr Stapp
14.2k44890
14.2k44890
They could have made it so both throw exception or both give an error but they decided not to. The question is why they chose this specific and slightly inconsistent behavior.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
They could have made it so both throw exception or both give an error but they decided not to. The question is why they chose this specific and slightly inconsistent behavior.
– Stilgar
yesterday
They could have made it so both throw exception or both give an error but they decided not to. The question is why they chose this specific and slightly inconsistent behavior.
– Stilgar
yesterday
They could have made it so both throw exception or both give an error but they decided not to. The question is why they chose this specific and slightly inconsistent behavior.
– Stilgar
yesterday
add a comment |
same as everyone saying here.
This line here is compile time and since compiler doesn't know the answer of this.It is giving error
int i = 5 / 0;
where as this line is a run time check and its just a general mathematical calculation so compiler no reason to throw this as an error
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
answered yesterday
dark_3nergydark_3nergy
628
add a comment |
same as everyone saying here.
This line here is compile time and since compiler doesn't know the answer of this.It is giving error
int i = 5 / 0;
where as this line is a run time check and its just a general mathematical calculation so compiler no reason to throw this as an error
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
answered yesterday
dark_3nergydark_3nergy
628
add a comment |
same as everyone saying here.
This line here is compile time and since compiler doesn't know the answer of this.It is giving error
int i = 5 / 0;
where as this line is a run time check and its just a general mathematical calculation so compiler no reason to throw this as an error
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
answered yesterday
dark_3nergydark_3nergy
628
same as everyone saying here.
This line here is compile time and since compiler doesn't know the answer of this.It is giving error
int i = 5 / 0;
where as this line is a run time check and its just a general mathematical calculation so compiler no reason to throw this as an error
int i = 10;
i = i / 0;
answered yesterday
dark_3nergydark_3nergy
628
answered yesterday
dark_3nergydark_3nergy
628
answered yesterday
dark_3nergydark_3nergy
628
answered yesterday
dark_3nergydark_3nergy
628
628
add a comment |
add a comment |
4
I believe it is the difference between the compile time evaluation of the expression and the runtime one.
– meJustAndrew
yesterday
3
Isn't 5 / 0 a constant during compilation while i / 0 is not?
– Christian Ivicevic
yesterday
3
Two identical questions in a couple of minutes?
– Panagiotis Kanavos
yesterday
1
@PanagiotisKanavos. Yea, it too will probably get deleted before the homework has been turned in :D
– Charles May
yesterday
@PanagiotisKanavos yes we were discussing the issue outside Stack Overflow and decided to ask separately. My question is now deleted.
– Stilgar
yesterday