Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!ogicse!cvedc!gssc!timr
From: timr@gssc.UUCP (Tim Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: &&**
Summary: Definitely legal, but perhaps unexpected.
Message-ID: <6334@gssc.UUCP>
Date: 12 Sep 90 16:07:13 GMT
References: <0926@sheol.UUCP> <20757:Sep1115:30:0390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <17959@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Inc. Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 10

In article <20757:Sep1115:30:0390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <0926@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>  [ that if a compiler reduces &&**x to x then it is buggy ]
>
>Question for the standards people: Is && undefined, unspecified,
>implementation-defined, or what have you?

Of course && is defined!  It's the logical "AND" operator!      :-)

And now, back to our regularly scheduled debate.