Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!vector!attctc!kcdev!cpsolv!rhg
From: rhg@cpsolv.UUCP (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: PL/I Grammar
Keywords: PL/I, C, grammar, parser
Message-ID: <427@cpsolv.UUCP>
Date: 23 Oct 89 06:49:19 GMT
References: <2956@usceast.UUCP> <422@cpsolv.UUCP> <1962@bacchus.dec.com>
Reply-To: rhg@cpsolv.uucp (Root)
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas
Lines: 16

In article <1962@bacchus.dec.com> bothner@decwrl.dec.com (Per Bothner) writes:
>In article <422@cpsolv.UUCP> rhg@cpsolv.uucp (Richard H. Gumpertz) writes:
>>      (increment >= 0 ? *index <= limit : *index >= limit) & (BEGIN == END);
>> No, the & in the second line shouldn't be an &&.
>
>Could you please explain how && and & could be different in this case?

I was trying to be as precise as possible.  They differ if the evaluation of
BEGIN or END generates side-effects: the WHILE(...) clause in PL/I is evaluated
even if the loop is ready to terminate.  A minor point; I probably shouldn't
have even pointed it out.
-- 
==========================================================================
| Richard H. Gumpertz   rhg@cpsolv.UUCP -or- ...!uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg |
| Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749 |
==========================================================================