Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Tim_CDC_Roberts
From: Tim_CDC_Roberts@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pcc bites it (was Re: programming puzzle (silly))
Message-ID: <15936@cup.portal.com>
Date: 17 Mar 89 17:31:57 GMT
References: <28336@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2550086@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 17

In <2550086@hpisod2.HP.COM>, decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot) writes:

>>    (n&&m) *= n--
> ... doesn't have two different valid interpretations, so it's not
> ambiguous, so the precedence rules are not applicable.

I disagree with this statement.  The parser does not necessarily have
any knowledge about whether a construct is _semantically_ valid.  It
is attempting to make a _syntactically_ valid interpretation, and BOTH
interpretations [ (n&&m) *= n--  vs.  n && (m*=n--) ] are syntactically
valid.

I say this tentatively - I've written compilers, but not a C compiler.
I would appreciate an opinion by a C compiler writer.

Tim_CDC_Roberts@cup.portal.com                | Control Data...
...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!tim_cdc_roberts |   ...or it will control you.