Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <15184@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 13 Feb 91 21:28:38 GMT
References: <4155@cernvax.cern.ch> <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell) writes:
- In article <4155@cernvax.cern.ch> burow@cernvax.cern.ch (burkhard burow) writes:
- >I'm wondering if anyone has any comments on using:
- >       *(a==b?&c:&d) = 1;
- >instead of:
- >       if (a==b) c=1;
- >       else      d=1;

My comment was going to be that it sucked bigtime.  However, I'll
buy "ugh" as a suitable comment too.

- P.S.	No wonder people complain about the denseness of C code!

C code has nothing to do with it, more like the density of some coders.