    -     args->endp - args->begin_argv + consume);
    +     args->endp - (args->begin_argv + consume));

tbh I've considered simply banning math-operator-precedence in projects I work on, and requiring all mixed-operator code to use parenthesis or split to multiple statements. I do that myself, at least.

I've seen so many mistakes from it, and seen people spend so much pointless and avoidable time deciphering and verifying it, it really doesn't seem worth it (in most code) for the extremely minor character savings.

▲ om2 an hour ago | parent [-]

- and + operators have the same precedence. And a similar bug is possible if the operators were the same (both -). So I’m not sure it’s right to blame this on operator precedence or mixed operators. It’s just that, ultimately, the “consume” needs to be subtracted, not added.

▲

Groxx an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Non-mixed always goes strictly left to right, regardless of the operator, which I haven't seen anywhere near as much struggling with.

But yes, I personally parenthesize `a-b-c` explicitly, because it's not worth it for me to read and wonder if parenthesizing order matters later. Costs less than a second to write, saves a second or ten each time I read it - that's an excellent tradeoff imo, and is a trivial pattern to follow.

(Associative operators are fine, obviously)

	▲	simonreiff 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with explicit parentheses but please be careful about assuming associativity! The risk when handling floating-point arithmetic in particular is that associativity breaks, and suddenly a + (b + c) does NOT equal (a + b) + c. Not only can these lead to unexpected and hard-to-trace failure patterns, but depending on the details, they also can introduce memory overflow/underflow vulnerabilities.

▲

genxy 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Didn't you just suffer from the same trap the parent was trying to avoid?