Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!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: <15231@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 17 Feb 91 20:03:11 GMT
References: <326@smds.UUCP> <15227@smoke.brl.mil> <1196@sheol.UUCP>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 22

In article <1196@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>-- [.. some context restored ..]
>--       *(a==b?&c:&d) = <some complicated messy expression>
>- There are good ways of exploiting the ?: operator and bad ways.
>- The example being discussed is clearly among the latter.
>I'm not sure I understand.  Could either Doug or Richard expand a little
>on just why the expression is "ugly" or a "bad way" to exploit the
>conditional operator?

You mis-restored the context.  The original example did NOT assign
the value of "some complicated messy expression"; rather, it assigned
the integer constant 1.  It is an abuse of the potential utility of
the ?: operator to use it, especially with the addition of levels of
indirection, where a simple
	if ( a == b )
		c = 1;
	else
		d = 1;
would be much clearer and (assuming a decent compiler) at least as
efficient.  I doubt that efficiency should have been an issue anyway;
however, clarity is very important.  If you doubt that, some remedial
reading of software engineering classics is indicated.