Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: *p++ = *p results?
Message-ID: <1078@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 11:22:54 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.1078
Posted: Mon Mar 24 11:22:54 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 04:14:47 EST
References: <312@imagen.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 15

In article <312@imagen.UUCP> kevin@imagen.UUCP (Kevin L. Malloy) writes:
>In the statement *p++ = *p; what will be the result?  Will p be equal
>to itself or will p be equal to the next value it is pointing to?
>In other words should p be incremented after it is evaluated or should
>p be incremented after the assignment operation is finished?-- 
>---
	The answer is - either. They are both "correct" since timing
of side-effects like assignment and post-increment is implementation
defined i "C". Do not ever write code like this!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa