Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU!bevis
From: bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Fonts and freeing memory
Message-ID: <9001182253.AA18421@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 90 22:53:25 GMT
References: <1990Jan17.013417.20587@haven.umd.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 36

In article <1990Jan17.013417.20587@haven.umd.edu>, louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:
>
>According to my K&R, first edition in Appendix A "C Reference Manual", 
>section 7.11:
>
>	7.11 Logical AND operator
>
>		{\it logical-and-expression:
>			   expression && expression}
>
>	The && operator groups left-to-right. It returns 1 if boths its
>	operands are non-zero, 0 otherwise.  Unlink &, && guarantees 
>	left-to-right evaluation; moreover the second operand is not
>	evaluated if the first operand is 0.
>
>So the example code posted works just fine.
>
>louie

[red, embarrassed face omitted]

I have obviously been using memory-destructive drugs.  Indeed I was wrong...
and I apologize for spreading bogus myth.... I would rather change my previous
statement to the form of "using two if's instead of the && would be clearer
and less confusing" instead of what I did state.  In some languages, the 
statement in question would present a problem of ambiguity, but thanks to
K&R, not in C.

At any rate, I am *never* going to loan out my K&R reference again, for if I
hadn't, I would've looked this up first.... :-(


+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Bevis 		         | "But I don't like spam!"		      |
| bevis@en.ecn.purdue.edu	 | 	     Give me Amiga or nothing at all. |
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+