precedence of && (was: precedence of ?:)
Maarten Litmaath
maart at cs.vu.nl
Fri Sep 15 04:13:37 AEST 1989
gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
\... 0 && (i = 0)
\...
\Actually, now that I've gotten back to my desk where I keep a copy of
\the proposed Standard, I find that you must supply the parentheses to
\get a legal parse. Without them there is no derivation from the
\grammar production rules. (I think. I keep getting this wrong.)
You're right, according to the January '88 :-( copy of the dpANS I have
at home.
[... 0 ? 0 : i = 0
is accepted, whereas
0 && i = 0
is not.]
\Maybe the intention is to avoid confusion. For example,
\ i = 0 && i = 0
\would either have to have an ambiguous parse, or else its interesting
\subexpression would be parsed differently depending on context, which
\is confusing. [...]
Allright, let's avoid the confusion; another example:
a + b = 7
But why allow the `?:' expression, why make it a special case?
--
creat(2) shouldn't have been create(2): |Maarten Litmaath @ VU Amsterdam:
it shouldn't have existed at all. |maart at cs.vu.nl, mcvax!botter!maart
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list