Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!samsung!spool.mu.edu!uunet!unhd.unh.edu!al
From: al@unhd.unh.edu (Anthony Lapadula)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <1991Feb20.215402.16343@unhd.unh.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 91 21:54:02 GMT
References: <1210@sheol.UUCP> <335@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au> <5669:Feb2020:23:4791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Lines: 21

In article <5669:Feb2020:23:4791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>
>None of this is relevant to the question at hand, which is whether
>
>  *(cond ? &a : &b) = x
>
>is valid. It is, provided that a = x and b = x are valid. It will work
>under any sane compiler. It must work under an ANSI compiler.

Not true.  Consider

	int a;
	char b;
	int x;

Certainly ``a = x'' and ``b = x'' are valid, but ``*(cond ? &a : &b) = x''
is not.

-- Anthony (uunet!unhd!al, al@cs.unh.edu) Lapadula

"I would agree with you if you were right."  --  Dr Sayer, "Awakenings"