Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <5669:Feb2020:23:4791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 91 20:23:47 GMT
References: <331@smds.UUCP> <1210@sheol.UUCP> <335@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au>
Organization: IR
Lines: 19

In article <335@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au> michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au (Michael Henning) writes:
> int	array[10][10];
> 	*array
> The type of the expression after dereferencing is "array of 10 ints", which
> is *not* an lvalue.

Either (1) array types are never lvalues, or (2) array types can never
be assigned to even if they are lvalues. I don't know which way the
standard defines lvalues; I find (2) a simpler approach, but in any case
(1) and (2) produce the same results.

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.

---Dan