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

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <3236 at solo10.cs.vu.nl> maart at cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
>Then how about the following, Doug?  "There is no legal way to parse..."
>	0 && i = 0

Sounds good to me; there is no legal way to parse
	0 && i = 0
as
	(0 && i) = 0
but there is a legal parse as
	0 && (i = 0)

Why did you bring that example up?  Are we using it wrong in the
Standard, or what?