Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!pasteur!johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU
From: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Summary: Geez!
Message-ID: <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 13 Feb 91 18:08:38 GMT
References: <4155@cernvax.cern.ch>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU
Lines: 16

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.

Ugh,
	John D. Mitchell
	johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU

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