Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!cpsc6a!rtech!wrs!dg
From: dg@wrs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Possible C Anomaly
Message-ID: <370@wrs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Sep-87 16:14:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: wrs.370
Posted: Fri Sep 25 16:14:46 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 21:35:37 EDT
References: <9270@brl-adm.ARPA> <5112@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <682@hsi.UUCP>
Reply-To: dg@wrs.UUCP (David Goodenough)
Organization: Wind River Systems, Emeryville, CA
Lines: 54

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:
]] In article <9270@brl-adm.ARPA> mrd@sun.mcs.clarkson.EDU (Michael R. DeCorte) writes:
]] <   /* Example #1 */            k = (k > 1) ? k-- : 1;
]] <
]] <   My intent was to decrement k with each pass until it reached 1 and then to
]] <   keep it at one.  There are a variety of ways to accomplish this but I just
]] <   happened to try this one first.
]] 
]] <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);
]
]or better yet
]
]	(k > 1) ? k-- :;
]
]
]just my two cents.

I've got my asbestos suit ready for the incoming flames, so I think I can
safely ask "Why the addictive fixation on the -- operator for this case.
Why not just say:

	k = (k > 1) ? k - 1 : 1;

Lint likes it, there is no problem with order of evaluation etc. etc. etc.
Alternatively why not try:

	if (k > 1)
	  k--;

Which is about as obvious an answer to what is required.
--
		dg@wrs.UUCP - David Goodenough

		..... ihnp4!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!dual!wrs!dg

					+---+
					| +-+-+
					+-+-+ |
					  +---+