Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!ginosko!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: <3260@solo5.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 14 Sep 89 18:13:37 GMT
References: <1265@gmdzi.UUCP> <11030@smoke.BRL.MIL> <11039@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3236@solo10.cs.vu.nl> <11045@smoke.BRL.MIL> <3242@solo12.cs.vu.nl> <11054@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: V.U. Informatica, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Lines: 30

gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
\...	0 && (i = 0)
\...
\Actually, now that I've gotten back to my desk where I keep a copy of
\the proposed Standard, I find that you must supply the parentheses to
\get a legal parse.  Without them there is no derivation from the
\grammar production rules.  (I think.  I keep getting this wrong.)

You're right, according to the January '88 :-( copy of the dpANS I have
at home.

[...	0 ? 0 : i = 0
is accepted, whereas
	0 && i = 0
is not.]

\Maybe the intention is to avoid confusion.  For example,
\	i = 0 && i = 0
\would either have to have an ambiguous parse, or else its interesting
\subexpression would be parsed differently depending on context, which
\is confusing. [...]

Allright, let's avoid the confusion; another example:

	a + b = 7

But why allow the `?:' expression, why make it a special case?
-- 
   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