Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!uflorida!travis!paulb From: paulb@ssd.csd.harris.com (Paul Beusterien) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS Message-ID: Date: 13 Feb 91 21:39:22 GMT References: <4155@cernvax.cern.ch> <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: news@travis.csd.harris.com Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division Lines: 18 In-reply-to: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU's message of 13 Feb 91 18:08:38 GMT 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; : :1) Readability, readability, READABILITY! : :2) Why? It's not any faster. Its probably slower, since it is a lot less likely the compiler will keep c and d in registers. -- Paul Beusterien paulb@ssd.csd.harris.com Harris Computer Systems {uunet,mit-eddie,novavax}!hcx1!paulb Ft. Lauderdale, FL voice: (305) 973 5270