lint bug or bad syntax?

[throopw at dg_rtp.UUCP]

> At a guess, lint doesn't parse much but instead does lots of lexxing.

Say what?  The lint utility must parse just as much as a compiler... in
just what sense does a typechecker parse "less" than it lexes?

In any event, this is indeed a bug in lint (or so I assert).  The
expression ((void)f(),(void)g()) provokes no message, but
(void)((void)f(),g()) causes a warning about the value of g being
ignored.  Clearly, g's value is explicitly being ignored in both cases.

In general, lint's opinions about side effects, lack thereof, and what
constitutes "use" of a value are less useful then they ought to be.
Unfortunately, the upshot for your case seems to be that there isn't a
clean way to get lint to accept your construct.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw