Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond
From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: comma operator:  keep away?
Message-ID: <10187@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 26 Apr 89 03:45:13 GMT
References: <19913@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <10092@smoke.BRL.MIL> <19926@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <8284@chinet.chi.il.us>
Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET
Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Lines: 26

In article <19926@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:

>>>>Is there a circumstance in which the comma operator is required, where
>>>>the compound statement cannot be broken into multiple statements?
>>>
>>I said "required", not "useful".

In article <8284@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:

>How about the more common:
>
>for (x=0, y=0; x <100 ; x++, y++) {
>    stuff ...
>}
> 
>Of course this could also be done other ways - the only thing "required"
>in a programming language is an assignment and a test-and-branch operator.
>The rest is merely "useful".

Why two operators?  The sole required operator is "subtract, assign, and
branch if negative."

Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
  The above opinions are my own.   |  Why are programmers criticized for
  If they're also your opinions,   |  re-inventing the wheel, when car
  you're infringing my copyright.  |  manufacturers are praised for it?