cond. op. on ='s LHS

[John D. Mitchell]

In article <16782 at crdgw1.crd.ge.com> volpe at camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) writes:
>In article <11129 at pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, johnm at cory.Berkeley.EDU (John
>D. Mitchell) writes:
>|>In article <16754 at crdgw1.crd.ge.com> volpe at camelback.crd.ge.com
>(Christopher R Volpe) writes:
>|>[....]
>|>>Yes, it's ugly, but it's conceivable that someone might have a good
>|>>reason for defining a macro to do this, so that the macro may be used
>|>>in an expression context.              
>|>
>|>Aahhh!  But context *is* everything.
>Huh??? So, like, what's your point?

Context:  the parts just before and after a word or passage, that
	  determines its meaning.  (Webster's New World)

In other words, the original poster gave a code snippet without any
supporting context.  That leaves the meaning up to the reader.  I for
one assumed that he was talking about using it in 'normal' code (macros
being *not* normal :-).

>|>One reason to use macros is to hide this sort of cryptic code behind
>|>a nice facade.  Oh well... if only C had...  :-)
>Isn't that what I suggested? Again, I'm unclear as to what you're trying
>to say. Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? And what is it that you wish C had?

Yep, I agree that due to whatever reasons the C language proper and its
attendant pre-processor make the expression of some kinds of functionality
cryptic, difficult, unreadable, confusing, etc.  The ternary operator
was built for its ability to be used inside the macro facility of a weak
pre-processor.  My "Oh well..." comment was a facetious attempt to jest
those who always want 'just one more feature'.

Sorry for the wasted net-width,
	John D. Mitchell
	johnm at cory.Berkeley.EDU