Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!seismo.gps.caltech.edu!bruce
From: bruce@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Bruce Worden)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: initialization
Keywords: comma operator
Message-ID: <1990Aug3.171956.14504@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 3 Aug 90 17:19:56 GMT
References: <1990Aug1.011654.22068@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <11221@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Sender: bruce@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Bruce Worden)
Distribution: comp.lang.c
Organization: Seismo Lab, California Institute of Technology, CA
Lines: 24

In article <11221@odin.corp.sgi.com> jindak@surfside.sgi.com (Chris Schoeneman) writes:
>In article <1990Aug1.011654.22068@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rpjday@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>writes:
>>int func(int a) 
>>{
>>	int i = a, j = i + 1 ;
>>
>>Am I allowed to initialize the integer "j" with the value of 
>>another variable initialized in the same line?

>Of course you're allowed.  C doesn't care if "i" is initialized or not!

>But don't worry, the comma operator is evaluated left to right.  So your
>code will always work correctly (i.e. "a" will be assigned to "i", then
>"i"+1 will be assigned to "j").

I am under the impression that the commas that separate variables in
declarations, like those that separate function arguments, are not comma 
operators.  I am under that impression because it explicitly states that
in K&R.  Is this statement a mis-statement in the book, or am I 
misunderstanding the statement?  Does the presence of an assignment 
in a declaration change the comma into a comma operator?  

sig("Bruce Worden", "bruce@seismo.gps.caltech.edu", "No NeWS is good NeWS");