[net.lang.c] Neophyte's question raised re: p

notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/09/84)

#R:erix:-32700:iuvax:9500005:000:224
iuvax!apratt    Apr  8 18:32:00 1984

Is it also true that
	*s++ = (s & 0x7F);
evaluates differently, based on order of evaluation? Or is "=" not
an operator in that sense (lvalues may be computed first...)

						-- Allan Pratt
					...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!apratt

ctk@ecsvax.UUCP (04/10/84)

Is *s++ = (s & 0x7f); legal C anyhow? If s is a pointer can one even write
s & 0x7f?

cab@druak.UUCP (BergerCA) (04/23/84)

I understand the desire for uniform evaluation of expressions in various
versions in C.  There are plenty of things that make me uncomfortable as
well.  Expressions of the type
	s++ = ( s & 0x7f );
		and the like just LOOK dangerous.  I prefer the safer
approach of
	s &= 0x7f;
	s++;
		which may generate slightly less efficient code of known
semantics.

		Charlie Berger
		...!druak!cab
		ATT Denver