Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!udel!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: precedence of ?: (was: precedence of && (was: precedence of ?:))
Message-ID: <11069@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 14 Sep 89 21:44:32 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> <3260@solo5.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <3260@solo5.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
>[...	0 ? 0 : i = 0
>is accepted, whereas
>	0 && i = 0
>is not.]
>But why allow the `?:' expression, why make it a special case?

I was mistaken in my original response; 0 ? 0 : i = 0 is not legal.
However, to save another iteration in this series of postings, note
that 0 ? i = 0 : 0 is legal.
	conditional-expression:
		logical-OR-expression
		logical-OR-expression ? expression : conditional-expression
So the interesting question becomes, why is that "expression" for the
second operand of ?: and not "logical-OR-expression".  (I think that
"conditional-expression" might result in ambiguity.)  The Rationale
says merely that "several extant implementations have adopted this
practice".  That must be the answer..