Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!think!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A question of style
Message-ID: <31884@news.Think.COM>
Date: 1 Dec 89 20:03:36 GMT
References: <547@mars.Morgan.COM> <1989Nov30.001947.14883@aqdata.uucp> <427@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA
Lines: 18

I hope you're prepared for a flood of followups (I know *I've* gotten them
when I've goofed like this)....

In article <427@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG> mark@jhereg.minnetech.mn.org (Mark H. Colburn) writes:
>The code above could be written as 
>	while (c = getchar && c  != EOF) { 
>Which most programmers would find "more intuitive" than the comma seperated
>one.

Except, of course, that it is *not* equivalent (and I'm ignoring the
missing parentheses after "getchar").  In the comma-separated version the
loop only ends when getchar() returns EOF.  Your version terminates the
loop when getchar() returns either 0 (e.g. if the user types Control-@) or
EOF.
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar