& operator - (nf)

[olson at fortune.UUCP]

#R:iwu1a:-16200:fortune:16200014:000:943
fortune!olson    Dec 15 12:19:00 1983

(This was in reply to Paul Fox (eagle!hou5h!pgf), who sent me mail)

I agree with the part about in being incremented after used. What I
disagree_d_ with was the idea that &(*in++) is the same as &*in++.

Page 186 of K+R says (2nd para.) that the type and VALUE of a
parenthesized expression is identical to the unadorned expression.  In
this case the expression evaluates to the original CHARACTER pointed to
by in.

The more research and thought I give to this, the more I suspect that
my original position was wrong; the KEY POINT being the last sentence
of the above paragraph.  This is yet another case of not pondering the
question long enough before replying.

As a matter of interest, the compilers on my 4.1bsd vax, and on my
Fortune 32:16 both assign 'out' the UNincremented value of 'in',
indicating that those compiler writers agree with your interpretation.

	Dave Olson, Fortune Systems
	{ihnp4,harpo,ucbvax!amd70}!fortune!olson