Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!princeton!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.bugs
Subject: Re: C Compiler bug (and fix for a different one)
Message-ID: <5872@alice.uUCp>
Date: Tue, 29-Jul-86 10:22:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.5872
Posted: Tue Jul 29 10:22:10 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jul-86 00:37:07 EDT
References: <461@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 23
Xref: mnetor net.lang.c:5488 net.bugs:297

> If I'm not throwing them away, what is it you think I'm doing with them?

> Also, the proposed ANSI draft explicitly states that the second and third
> operands of ?: may each have (void) type, so I'm not trying anything
> unusual here.

I think you're using them to form another value.  It is irrelevant
that you're then throwing that value away.  Suppose f() is void
and you say:

	f()+1;

Now you're adding 1 to a void and throwing the result away.  Should that
be permitted?

More seriously, I can actually see both sides of the argument.  But the
construction ...?f():g()  where f() and g() are void is close enough
to the edge that I wouldn't want to use it in any context where I might
ultimately want to run it on a lot of compilers.  Why not just say

	if (...) f(); else g();

??