Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!udel!burdvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!nobody
From: nobody@ism780c.UUCP (Unprivileged user)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "logical" xor
Message-ID: <8617@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jan 88 23:23:02 GMT
References: <2946@zeus.TEK.COM> <170@illusion.UUCP> <39a83409.ae48@apollo.uucp>
Reply-To: marv@ism780.UUCP (Marvin Rubenstein)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA
Lines: 19

In article <39a83409.ae48@apollo.uucp> arnold@apollo.UUCP (Ken Arnold) writes:
>In article <170@illusion.UUCP> Marcus Hall writes:
>>((a != 0) ^ (b != 0)) gives (1) ^ (1) == 0, which is false.
>
>Not even true yet.  All (a != 0) is guaranteed to generate (if a is
>not 0) is a non-zero value, *any* non-zero value, which just *usually*
>is 1.  It could be 7.

From K&R page 198
-----------------
  "The operators < (less than), > (greater than) , <= (less than or equal
  to), and >= (greater than or equal to) all yield 0 if the specified
  relation is false and 1 if it is true."

A simiilar statement appears on page 190 for == and !=.  There is similar
wording in the proposed standard but I loaned out my only copy so I cannot
quote it.

     Marv Rubinstein -- Interactive Systems