Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Weird C code as test for employment
Message-ID: <6253@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 8-Aug-87 08:49:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6253
Posted: Sat Aug  8 08:49:33 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 11:10:46 EDT
References: <8634@brl-adm.ARPA> <7881@mimsy.UUCP> <6239@brl-smoke.ARPA> <183@xyzzy.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <183@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>I don't get it.  What lvalue rules are violated by the above?

What I originally thought might be wrong is that in the process of
expanding the expression *--*++cpp at one point one is trying to
evaluate --(cp+2) (or something like that), and it was not (and still
is not) clear to me that (cp+2) qualifies as a modifiable lvalue.
Perhaps one can deduce this from the rules but I sure didn't.