Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mtx5a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akguc!mtunh!mtuni!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!esg
From: esg@mtx5a.UUCP (ed gokhman)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: unary +
Message-ID: <1227@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 10:45:53 EST
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1227
Posted: Tue Mar  4 10:45:53 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Mar-86 07:22:24 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 18

Hi:

The ANSI draft makes case for the unary + operator with
the following example:

An expression a + (b + c) may be calculated by some
implementations as (a + b) + c. To enforce the
intended precedence of operations one should use
a + +(b + c).

Question: what is the rational for not saying that an
	implementation *must* respect parenthesising
	as intended rather then providing an extra
	operator simply to state "i mean these parenthesis" ?


				Thanx in advance,
				Ed Gokhman