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: <6275@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 12-Aug-87 12:07:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6275
Posted: Wed Aug 12 12:07:17 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Aug-87 06:30:46 EDT
References: <8634@brl-adm.ARPA> <7881@mimsy.UUCP> <6239@brl-smoke.ARPA> <183@xyzzy.UUCP> <6253@brl-smoke.ARPA> <860@tjalk.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <860@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer B. Lievaart) writes:
>In article <6253@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
...

To forestall further traffic on this, I should report that
I started out mildly boggled by *--*cp in the example code,
and when I looked it up in the latest X3J11 working draft
I become hopelessly confused.  It seems that section 3.2.2.1
and 3.3.0.1 got tangled together somehow in the editing
process, so the lvalue rules appear (to me, anyway) to not
be what I thought they were intended to be.  Confusing the
value of an expression with the ruels for determining
lvalueness is my own fault, though.

In summary, I think that the only actual bug in the original
code was the **** => *** one that numerous people caught,
and that the current X3J11 draft standard may have a typo
that needs to be corrected in section 3.2.2.1,