Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!richard
From: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <4130@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Feb 91 11:40:56 GMT
References: <4155@cernvax.cern.ch>
Reply-To: richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 19

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;

Yes, it's ugly and pointless, and furthermore prevents c and d from
being in registers.

By the way, gcc allows as an extension

    (a == b ? c : d) = 1;

which is much more reasonable.

-- Richard
-- 
Richard Tobin,                       JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed             
AI Applications Institute,           ARPA:  R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University.                UUCP:  ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin