Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: help with a 'C' problemR
Message-ID: <16551@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 27 Jun 91 03:30:05 GMT
References: <4825@inews.intel.com> <7980@segue.segue.com> <4878@inews.intel.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <4878@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@bishop.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>>The `()' operator has unspecified precedence wrt the `->' operator,
>Ok, ok, explicitly, true; implicitly, false; it's all
>deducible from the allowable types of operands; ...

Not only is this not a UNIX Wizardly topic, but it's not even C wizardly.
The production rule "postfix-expression: postfix-expression -> identifier"
in conjunction with "postfix-expression: postfix-expression ( argument-
expression-list )" specifies how to parse p->f().  This is neither
unspecified nor ambiguous.