Path: utzoo!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: <3263@solo5.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 14 Sep 89 21:41:32 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> <1989Sep14.175841.8086@twwells.com>
Organization: V.U. Informatica, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Lines: 22

bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
\...	a ? b : c = d
\
\can't be parsed as (a ? b : c) = d, since a ? b : c isn't a
\unary-expression. It can, however, be parsed as a ? b : (c = d). As
\far as I know, there are no compilers that this breaks on.
\
\Similarly one analyzes a && b = c:

STOP!  Let's do precisely what you said, let's analyze a && b = c
SIMILARLY:

	a && b = c

"can't be parsed as (a && b) = c, since a && b isn't a
unary-expression. It can, however, be parsed as a && (b = c). As
far as I know, there are no compilers that this breaks on."

But wait!  This example breaks on EVERY compiler!
-- 
   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