Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!crdgw1!camelback!volpe
From: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <16754@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 14 Feb 91 13:28:09 GMT
References: <4155@cernvax.cern.ch> <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <15184@smoke.brl.mil>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: volpe@camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Lines: 21

In article <15184@smoke.brl.mil>, gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
|>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.

Yes, it's ugly, but it's conceivable that someone might have a good
reason for defining a macro to do this, so that the macro may be used
in an expression context.              
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com