Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pointer Trouble Right Here in Unix City
Message-ID: <11111@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 21:54:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11111
Posted: Tue May 28 21:54:02 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 04:24:17 EDT
References: <179@gatech.CSNET>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 28


> 		case 'b':
> 			*(*argv + 2) ? *argv += 2 : argv++;
> 
It's upset because the "true" expression and the "false" expression
are of different.  Turn to page 191 in K&R and read along with me:

"If both are pointers of the same type, the result has the common
type, otherwise, one must be a pointer and the other the constant 0"

A disgusting fix is to make the false expression "*argv++"

I don't know why people have an aversion to readable code.

First what is wrong with an IF/ELSE combination here?  It's what you
are doing.  You are not selecting one of two expressions, but choosing
to do one evaluation or the other.  It's up to you, but it seems muddle-
some to me.  My bigger complaint is

		*(*argv + 2)

Give me a brake they put the brackets in C so you wouldn't have to do every-
thing with *.

How about

		argv[0][2]
???