Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!ism780c!news
From: news@ism780c.isc.com (News system)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: precedence of && (was: precedence of ?:)
Message-ID: <33395@ism780c.isc.com>
Date: 15 Sep 89 21:40:55 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> <3263@solo5.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: marv@ism780.UUCP (Marvin Rubenstein)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 17

In article <3263@solo5.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
: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!

Unfortunately, pcc based compilers accept a && b += c.  They do reject
a && b = c however.  Writing a grammer for the language as was done by ANSI
helps avoid these funnies.

    Marv Rubinstein