Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce!goanna!minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!s900387
From: s900387@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Craig Macbride)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: cond. op. on ='s LHS
Message-ID: <1991Feb23.033948.28380@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 23 Feb 91 03:39:48 GMT
References: <4155@cernvax.cern.ch> <11073@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: VUT(RMIT), Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 21

johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell) writes:

>In article <4155@cernvax.cern.ch> burow@cernvax.cern.ch (burkhard burow) writes:
>>I'm wondering if anyone has any comments on using:
>>       *(a==b?&c:&d) = 1;
>>instead of:
>>       if (a==b) c=1;
>>       else      d=1;

>1) Readability, readability, READABILITY!

>2) Why?  It's not any faster.

3) If someone decides to make c and/or d register variables, they have to
decipher and change your cryptic piece of assignment code.

-- 
 _____________________________________________________________________________
| Craig Macbride, s900387@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au |  Reality is for people who   |
| Only the equipment belongs to Victoria Uni.  | can't handle science fiction.|
| of Technology (RMIT); The opinions are mine. |______________________________|