Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <147@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 91 18:15:18 GMT
References: <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <15184@smoke.brl.mil> <326@smds.UUCP> <1196@sheol.UUCP> <331@smds.UUCP> <1210@sheol.UUCP> <335@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 23

In article <335@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au> michi@ptcburp.ptcbu.oz.au (Michael Henning) writes:
>throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>> this is irrelevant since the result of * always is [an lvalue].
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>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.

Yes it is, at least according to the ANSI definition of lvalue.  It is just
not a *modifiable* lvalue.  [Of course this is 'promoted' to a pointer to int
in most contexts].
In fact the ANSI standard explicitely states that the result of the unary *
operator is an lvalue (with *no* conditions).
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)