precedence of && (was: precedence of ?:)

[David Goodenough]

OK, you say:

a ? b : c = d

can't be parsed sensibly as

(a ? b : c) = d

which I tend to agree with: the term in parentheses is not an lvalue.

But what about:

int a;
char *b, *c, d;


	.
	.
	.

	a ? *b : *c = d

Now, can that legally be done?? Whatever value a has (TRUE or FALSE) the
a ? *b : *c construct could be considered an lvalue (OK, so you need a
slightly twisted mind to see it :-) ) And it's a somewhat academic question,
since the * (indirection) operator distributes over the ?: operator: the
above could equally well be written as:

	*(a ? b : c) = d

which had better be fair game, otherwise I'm going to complaing to my
compiler vendor.
-- 
	dg at lakart.UUCP - David Goodenough		+---+
						IHS	| +-+-+
	....... !harvard!xait!lakart!dg			+-+-+ |
AKA:	dg%lakart.uucp at xait.xerox.com			  +---+