Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Possible C Anomaly
Message-ID: <5163@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 19-Sep-87 20:18:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: jade.5163
Posted: Sat Sep 19 20:18:55 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 16:44:05 EDT
References: <9270@brl-adm.ARPA> <5112@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <682@hsi.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 46

In article <682@hsi.UUCP> palmer@hsi.UUCP (Mike Palmer) writes:
<In article <5112@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
<> <Try 
<> <	k = (k > 1) ? --k : 1;
<> 
<> No! Consider that you're doing (one way) "k = --k". You still don't know
<
<... stuff deleted ...
<
<> <or
<> <	k = (k > 1) ? (k - 1) : 1;
<> 
<> Much better - it's right.
<
<why not just use
<
<	(k > 1) ? k-- : (k = 1);

Because the original question was "why doesn't k = ..." work. Also,
this displays the bad habit of using something normally used to
generate an expression as a statement.


<or better yet
<
<	(k > 1) ? k-- :;

Because it's not legal C. Gotta have an expression between the : and
the ;. 

If you're going to rewrite the original statement

	"k = (k > 1) ? --k : 1 ;"
	
you'd be better of just to go to

	if (k > 1) k -= 1 ;

if it will work - the semantics aren't quite the same.

	<mike
--
But I'll survive, no you won't catch me,		Mike Meyer
I'll resist the urge that is tempting me,		ucbvax!mwm
I'll avert my eyes, keep you off my knee,		mwm@berkeley.edu
But it feels so good when you talk to me.		mwm@ucbjade.BITNET