Marc Olzheim wrote:
> > In any case, your fears are unfounded, for the most part, since
> > the FAQ entry you are referencing is not analogous to the construct
> > you are trying to apply it to, anyway, and the FAQ fails to deal
> > with many of these portability issues, too, since it assumes that
[snip interesting piece of compiler history]
> In any case, your fears are unfounded, for the most part, since
> the FAQ entry you are referencing is not analogous to the construct
> you are trying to apply it to, anyway, and the FAQ fails to deal
> with many of these portability issues, too, sinc
Marc Olzheim wrote:
> ..
> if ((nd = parse_char_class(++nd)) == NULL) {
> ..
>
> Hmmm... is this legal ?
>
> http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q3.1.html seems to tell otherwise...
The FAQ entry you reference has nothing to say about this at
all... it has to do with whether the *location* of the l
It's legal, though one would have to know what the author was thinking
(or at least read the surrounding code) before stating that it's also
"correct".
It's legal because, unlike the example given in that FAQ entry you
referenced, there's an implicit ordering in the expression that even
the mo
> If it were nd++, yes. However, it is ++nd, thus, the increment
> happens first, then the call to parse_char_class(), then the assignment
> to nd.
Ah right, sorry, my mistake...
Zlo
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:54:17AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 06-Nov-2002 Marc Olzheim wrote:
> > ..
> > if ((nd = parse_char_class(++nd)) == NULL) {
> > ..
> >
> > Hmmm... is this legal ?
> >
> > http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q3.1.html seems to tell otherwise...
>
> If it were nd++,
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:46:53PM +0100, Marc Olzheim wrote:
> ..
> if ((nd = parse_char_class(++nd)) == NULL) {
> ..
>
> Hmmm... is this legal ?
>
> http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q3.1.html seems to tell otherwise...
In this particular case, the value of 'nd' is not *used* anywhere in the
ex
On 06-Nov-2002 Marc Olzheim wrote:
> ..
> if ((nd = parse_char_class(++nd)) == NULL) {
> ..
>
> Hmmm... is this legal ?
>
> http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q3.1.html seems to tell otherwise...
If it were nd++, yes. However, it is ++nd, thus, the increment
happens first, then the call to parse
..
if ((nd = parse_char_class(++nd)) == NULL) {
..
Hmmm... is this legal ?
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q3.1.html seems to tell otherwise...
Zlo
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
9 matches
Mail list logo
