Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!maart
From: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: precedence of && (was: precedence of ?:)
Message-ID: <3242@solo12.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 13 Sep 89 15:36:56 GMT
References: <1265@gmdzi.UUCP> <11030@smoke.BRL.MIL> <11039@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3236@solo10.cs.vu.nl> <11045@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: V.U. Informatica, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Lines: 21

gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
\... there is no legal way to parse
\	0 && i = 0
\as
\	(0 && i) = 0
\but there is a legal parse as
\	0 && (i = 0)

gcc (ANSI or what?) does accept

	0 ? 0 : i = 0

but it does NOT accept

	0 && i = 0

In fact, I've never used a C compiler that accepted the latter construct.
Of course I fully agree it should be accepted.
-- 
   creat(2) shouldn't have been create(2): |Maarten Litmaath @ VU Amsterdam:
      it shouldn't have existed at all.    |maart@cs.vu.nl, mcvax!botter!maart