Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: unary +
Message-ID: <1118@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Apr-86 16:41:24 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.1118
Posted: Mon Apr 21 16:41:24 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Apr-86 22:45:40 EST
References: <2323@brl-smoke.ARPA> <687@bentley.UUCP> <1245@mmintl.UUCP> <2591@utcsri.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 23

In article <2591@utcsri.UUCP> randy@utcsri.UUCP (Randall S. Becker) writes:
>
>Forgive me for asking, but what is meant by a + +(b + c)? 
>	Common interpretations:
>		a + abs(b + c)		(not likely)
>		a + (b + c)		(likely, in my opinion)
>
	The answer is *neither*. In the proposed 'C' standard it means

	register tmp;

	(tmp = b + c, a + tmp)

except that tmp never actually exists. This is what all the fuss is
about. Some people think this is a poor idea. The problem this is
intended to solve is that the 'C' language permits a + (b + c) to be
evaluated in *any* order, even [a + b] + c.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

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