home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: solon.com!not-for-mail
- From: seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: do || die;
- Date: 11 Mar 1996 08:25:14 -0600
- Organization: Usenet Fact Police (Undercover)
- Message-ID: <4i1d4a$1dq@solutions.solon.com>
- References: <1996Mar7.052636.59812@ucl.ac.uk> <DnwJKs.KyJ@uns.bris.ac.uk> <mjs.826218466@hubcap> <1996Mar11.130836.4955@friend.kastle.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com
-
- In article <1996Mar11.130836.4955@friend.kastle.com>,
- Richard Krehbiel <rich@kastle.com> wrote:
- >mjs@hubcap.clemson.edu (M. J. Saltzman) wrote:
-
- >> i -= i != 0
-
- >Um, wouldn't that be undefined? The value of i is stored and there
- >are two references to i without an intervening sequence point. One
- >reference is implicit by the "-=" operator and the other is explicit.
-
- Nope. It's ok if it's only modified once, and all references are
- directly used to compute the new value. "i -= i" is also legal.
-
- I would not have written it; I don't consider it polite to use the
- conceptually boolean return from a relational operator as a number, because
- it takes a couple of passes to figure out the intent. But it is legal.
-
- -s
- --
- Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com - Copyright 1996 Peter Seebach.
- C/Unix wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. No, really!
- FUCK the communications decency act. Goddamned government. [literally.]
- The *other* C FAQ - http://www.solon.com/~seebs/c/c-iaq.html
-