Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!orcenl!bengsig
From: bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C history question
Keywords: C design
Message-ID: <507.nlhp3@oracle.nl>
Date: 18 Sep 89 11:52:19 GMT
References: <575@calmasd.Prime.COM> <1687@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <11046@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: bengsig@oracle.nl (Bjorn Engsig)
Organization: ORACLE Europe, The Netherlands
Lines: 17

|In article <1687@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> pmontgom@math.ucla.edu (Peter Montgomery) writes:
|>shouldn't we be allowed to abbreviate this to
|>		allok &&= a[i] > b[i];
Article <11046@smoke.BRL.MIL> by gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) says:
|If allok is being used as a Boolean, as it should be in such a context,
|you can use &= instead.  One less character to type, too.
No.  I assume that &&= should only evaluate it's right hand if the lefthand
is nonzero.
|
|[Doug continues with other points about boolean (assingment) operators]
I agree with these, it would be too much for a very limited use.  I would
write the above

if (allok)
  allok = a[i] > b[i];
-- 
Bjorn Engsig, bengsig@oracle.nl, bengsig@oracle.com, mcvax!orcenl!bengsig