Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: precedence of && (was: precedence of ?:)
Message-ID: <11045@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 13 Sep 89 07:57:24 GMT
References: <1265@gmdzi.UUCP> <11030@smoke.BRL.MIL> <11039@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3236@solo10.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <3236@solo10.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
>Then how about the following, Doug?  "There is no legal way to parse..."
>	0 && i = 0

Sounds good to me; there is no legal way to parse
	0 && i = 0
as
	(0 && i) = 0
but there is a legal parse as
	0 && (i = 0)

Why did you bring that example up?  Are we using it wrong in the
Standard, or what?