Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!hsdndev!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: <10947:Feb2102:59:1091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 91 02:59:10 GMT
References: <335@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au> <5669:Feb2020:23:4791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Feb20.215402.16343@unhd.unh.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 11

In article <1991Feb20.215402.16343@unhd.unh.edu> al@unhd.unh.edu (Anthony Lapadula) writes:
> 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.

Oops, sorry. Make that ``a and b have the same type and a = x is valid.''

---Dan