Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Weird C code as test for employment
Message-ID: <183@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Aug-87 17:19:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: xyzzy.183
Posted: Fri Aug  7 17:19:01 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 06:18:16 EDT
References: <8634@brl-adm.ARPA> <7881@mimsy.UUCP> <6239@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Data General, RTP NC.
Lines: 24

) gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
) In article <7881@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
))*--*++cpp was not wrong; Doug obviously just looked at it and said
))`you gotta be kidding'.
) 
) No, actually I suspected it might be wrong and looked up the rules
) for lvalueness in the latest X3J11 draft.  As a result of discussion
) with Chris, however, I now think that the X3J11 rules may not be
) what we intended, and I'll be bringing that up at the next meeting.

I don't get it.  What lvalue rules are violated by the above?  The only
things that require an lvalue are ++ and --.  The ++ is applied to cpp,
which is an lvalue on accounta it's a variable, and the -- is applied to
an indirection, which is an lvalue on accounta indirections always
return lvalues (which are sometimes not modifiable, granted, but in this
case the indirection yeilds a pointer type, which *is* modifiable).

So again:    huh?

--
IBM manuals are written by little old ladies in Poughkeepsie who are
instructed to say nothing specific.
                                --- R. T. Lillington
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw