Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!andree
From: andree@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: & operator - (nf)
Message-ID: <4604@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Dec-83 22:49:49 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4604
Posted: Sun Dec 18 22:49:49 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Dec-83 01:24:48 EST
Lines: 25

#R:iwu1a:-16200:uokvax:3000012:000:840
uokvax!andree    Dec 16 09:38:00 1983

/***** uokvax:net.lang.c / fortune!olson /  9:57 pm  Dec 14, 1983 */
I would have to disagree with chris as to what should be assigned by:
	char *in, *out, buf[];
	in = buf;
	out = &(*in++);
since he forgot the parentheses.  Given the parentheses, out SHOULD
be set buf+1; that is, 'in' is incremented BEFORE the & operator is
applied.

(The original article did not include the second line of my example,
and asked whether out should be set to 'in', or 'in+1'.  The answer
is of course 'in'.  The question is not meaningful as stated.  The
question should be: does it point to the ORIGINAL value of 'in', or
the incremented value of 'in'.)
	Dave Olson
/* ---------- */

Yes, but the & operator is not being applied to `in', but to `*in', with
the increment happening AFTER the dereference. Therefore, you should get
buf, not buf+1.

	<mike