Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.ARpA (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: unary +
Message-ID: <1302@lll-crg.ARpA>
Date: Sat, 8-Mar-86 18:40:34 EST
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.1302
Posted: Sat Mar  8 18:40:34 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 08:23:14 EST
References: <1227@mtx5a.UUCP>
Reply-To: brooks@lll-crg.UUCP (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG Group
Lines: 9

In article <1227@mtx5a.UUCP> esg@mtx5a.UUCP (ed gokhman) writes:
>The ANSI draft makes case for the unary + operator ...
>
>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" ?

It was probably done so as not to break old code :-)