Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!apple!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!brolga!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!lance!ptcburp!michi
From: michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au (Michael Henning)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <335@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au>
Date: 19 Feb 91 22:46:10 GMT
References: <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <15184@smoke.brl.mil> <326@smds.UUCP> <1196@sheol.UUCP> <331@smds.UUCP> <1210@sheol.UUCP>
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation
Lines: 27

throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

>As Dan Bernstein has pointed out in another article, Richard is
>incorrect here.  While it is true that the result of ?: is never
>an lvalue, this is irrelevant since the result of * always is.	
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm...

What about

int	array[10][10];

and an expression

	*array

The type of the expression after dereferencing is "array of 10 ints", which
is *not* an lvalue.


							Michi.
-- 
      -m------- Michael Henning			+61 75 950255
    ---mmm----- Pyramid Technology		+61 75 522475 FAX
  -----mmmmm--- Research Park, Bond University	michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au
-------mmmmmmm- Gold Coast, Q 4229, AUSTRALIA	uunet!munnari!ptcburp.oz!michi