Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Pointers to sibling classes in conditional expressions Message-ID: <5504@lupine.NCD.COM> Date: 12 May 91 06:00:56 GMT References: <1991Apr26.152511.14662@watson.ibm.com> <1991Apr29.173219.29532@alias.com> Distribution: comp Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA Lines: 19 In article <1991Apr29.173219.29532@alias.com> rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis) writes: > >Is this the case? Are ?: expressions broken in AT&T cfront >derivatives for this reason? Is the ANSI draft more explicit on this? Wel,, since you mentioned the rule which says that any constant expression which evaluates to zero can stand in for a NULL pointer, I'd have to say "Yes, cfront is broken". I don't think that it's just the interaction with ?: however that brings this to light. As I recall there are lots of contexts in which a null pointer value should be acceptable but where an expression like "5+7-2-10" will get you an error. -- // Ron ("Loose Cannon") Guilmette // Internet: rfg@ncd.com uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg // New motto: If it ain't broke, try using a bigger hammer.