cond. op. on ='s LHS

[Christopher R Volpe]

In article <15184 at smoke.brl.mil>, gwyn at smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
|>In article <11073 at pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, johnm at cory.Berkeley.EDU (John
D. Mitchell) writes:
|>- In article <4155 at cernvax.cern.ch> burow at cernvax.cern.ch (burkhard
burow) writes:
|>- >I'm wondering if anyone has any comments on using:
|>- >       *(a==b?&c:&d) = 1;
|>- >instead of:
|>- >       if (a==b) c=1;
|>- >       else      d=1;
|>
|>My comment was going to be that it sucked bigtime.  However, I'll
|>buy "ugh" as a suitable comment too.

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.              
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr at crd.ge.com