Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!oacb2
From: oacb2@ut-ngp.UUCP (oacb2)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: condition convention 'if (10 == j)...'
Message-ID: <1672@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 12:18:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1672
Posted: Mon Apr 29 12:18:11 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 04:11:07 EDT
References: <brl-tgr.9509> <137@bocklin.UUCP> <> <332@cubsvax.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 17

> Just that instead of writing, in the traditional manner,
>	if(pc=malloc(nbytes)==NULL)...
> you have to insert extra parens if you use the other form:
>	if(NULL==(pc=malloc(nbytes)))..

Huh???  The first sets pc to 0 or 1 depending on whether the result of
malloc is or is not NULL.  The second sets pc to the result of malloc.

This seems to be another argument in favor of (CONSTANT == expression).
The first is probably incorrect, but legal C.

I think the (CONSTANT == expression) form is ugly.  That may just be that
it's not very familiar (guess it's been too many years since I used APL).
It does seem to have some merit though.
-- 

	Mike Rubenstein, OACB, UT Medical Branch, Galveston TX 77550