Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!nrl-cmf!ukma!gatech!udel!rochester!rutgers!im4u!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!rushfort
From: rushfort@esunix.UUCP (Kevin Rushforth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Autoincrement question (ignore my previous posting)
Message-ID: <619X@esunix.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jan 88 00:00:00 GMT
References: <618@esunix.UUCP>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah
Lines: 29

in article <618@esunix.UUCP>, rushfort@esunix.UUCP (Kevin Rushforth) says:
> in article <548@tuvie>, rcvie@tuvie (ELIN Forsch.z.) says:
>> If there is any necessity to have the whole semantic in one *expression*, use
>> the comma operator, as
>> 
>> bar->tmp = bar, bar++;
>> 
>> This operator *guarantees* the sequential evaluation of its operands from
>> left to right.
> 
> Not quite.  While it is true that bar will be evaluated before bar++,
> it is bar++, not bar, that will be assigned to bar->tmp.

Oops.  When I wrote the above nonsense, I had incorectly parsed the
expression as:

	bar->tmp = (bar, bar++);	/* This won't work */

Instead of:

	bar->tmp = bar, bar++;		/* This will work fine */

Well, since it is obviously past my bedtime, I will shut-up now.
-- 
                Kevin C. Rushforth
                Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation

UUCP Address:   {ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!rushfort
Alternate:      {bellcore,cbosgd,ulysses}!utah-cs!esunix!rushfort