cond. op. on ='s LHS

[Chris Dollin]

Someone (I've lost the attribution) asked how people felt about:

   >       *(a==b?&c:&d) = 1;
   >
   >instead of:
   >
   >       if (a==b) c=1;
   >       else      d=1;

I'll add my agreement; the first one is "Ugh". But .. how would people feel if
conditionals could deliver lvalues, ie, so that

    (a == b ? c : d) = 1;

was legal and had the obvious meaning? (Clearly, when c, d, and especially 1
are more complex expressions, you might wish to make it abundantly clear that a
*single* value was being assigned to one or other localtion.)

If anyone sees fit to respond to this, I suggest they switch newsgroups to
comp.lang.misc, as it will no longer be much to do with C ...

--

Regards, Kers.      | "You're better off  not dreaming of  the things to come;
Caravan:            | Dreams  are always ending  far too soon."