Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1761@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Aug-86 18:07:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1761
Posted: Fri Aug 22 18:07:19 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Aug-86 21:31:09 EDT
References: <243@desint.UUCP> <86900015@haddock>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 18

In article <86900015@haddock> karl@haddock.UUCP writes:
>... "(e1?e2:e3),e4".

It occurred to me that there is a workaround which deals not only with the
void case, but also with the case where the types of e2 and e3 are different
(and the result is to be ignored): "e1?(e2,0):(e3,0)".  I'm not sure whether
to recommend this in cases where an expression is required instead of a
statement, or to draw back in horror.

>For another, the types might be
>unknown, if they are arguments in a macro; in this case I would want the
>macro to work on void as well as valued expressions.

This case is not covered by my suggestion.  I find it hard to imagine doing
it, however.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108