Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: precedence of ?: (was: precedence of && (was: precedence of ?:))
Message-ID: <11087@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 17 Sep 89 00:10:40 GMT
References: <3236@solo10.cs.vu.nl> <2550103@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <2550103@hpisod2.HP.COM> decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes:
>Note that it also renders invalid several classes of expression that
>were completely correct in K&R I.

It wasn't at all clear what was intended by K&R I.

>Another interesting effect of the Standard's grammar is that:
>    k = (!y ? 0 : t = 1);
>is valid, but
>    k = (y ? t = 1 : 0);
>is a syntax error, although it had a single unambiguous parse in K&R I.

Other way around.

I think all existing usage where different compilers always parsed
the expressions the same way still work as before.  In cases where
there were varying interpretations, the Standard now provides a
single unambiguous prescription for how to parse the expressions.