Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!mikes
From: mikes@apple.UUCP (Mike Shannon)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.bugs
Subject: Re: C Compiler bug (and fix for a different one)
Message-ID: <111@apple.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Aug-86 04:19:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: apple.111
Posted: Tue Aug  5 04:19:54 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Aug-86 22:44:52 EDT
References: <273@watmath.UUCP> <5858@alice.uUCp> <461@watmath.UUCP> <504@hadron.UUCP>
Reply-To: mikes@apple.UUCP (Mike Shannon)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 15
Xref: mnetor net.lang.c:5559 net.bugs:309


Just to be sure we're all on the same wavelength about void expressions
with the ?: operator:
	Consider the case where you're writing a really complex #define macro,
and you decide that you'd like some sort of IF statement in it,
(take a look at getchar()).  Can't you see a case where you might want to
call a void function, and then set the value of the #define macro to be
a side effect of the function?  Sort of like
#define foo(c) buffer_empty?fill_buff(),first_char_in_buf:first_char_in_buf
	I mean, it seems to me that the 'pro' argument is that you get flow of
control in #define's. Although when you way that 'void things cannot participate
in expressions', a rational person would say that conditional expressions are
expressions and so you can't have a void thing in that kind of expression.
-- 
			Michael Shannon {apple!mikes}