Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!seismo!mcvax!botter!tjalk!rblieva
From: rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer b Lievaart)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Weird C code as test for employment
Message-ID: <860@tjalk.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 11-Aug-87 13:05:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: tjalk.860
Posted: Tue Aug 11 13:05:05 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Aug-87 03:20:47 EDT
References: <8634@brl-adm.ARPA> <7881@mimsy.UUCP> <6239@brl-smoke.ARPA> <183@xyzzy.UUCP> <6253@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer B. Lievaart)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 21

In article <6253@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>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.

No, you are not evaluating --(cp+2). Why not? Well:

	{	int a ;
		a = 2 ;
		++a ;
		....
is completely correct, isn't it?
But "you"'re not evaluating ++2 or something, but ++a.
++a means a = a + 1 , not 2 = 2 + 1.
So the same goes for: if *x == y    ++*x does not mean ++y.
That's all there is to it.

Roemer.
"Never thought it would go so fast: BASIC and Pascal already belong to
the dead languages"  ( v. Kooten & de Bie )