C's triadic operator.
Norman Diamond
diamond at diamond.csl.sony.junet
Tue May 16 15:08:54 AEST 1989
In article <26212 at watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth at watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes:
>With diadic operators they are fairly obvious and reasonable:
...
>- If one operand is a pointer to void, and the other is a pointer
> to some other type, the void pointer will be coerced to the
> same type as the other pointer.
>With triadic operators (i.e. c?e1:e2) we have:
...
>- If one expression is a pointer to (possibly qualified) void
> and the other is any arbitrary type, the arbitrary pointer
> is coerced to be an unqualified pointer to void.
>Does that seem obvious, reasonable, or useful to anyone out there?
Not to me, though this doesn't answer your question.
>Since the Rationale has nothing to say about this,
>can someone on the Comittee tell us why such strange behaviour
>with "?:" is required?
Surely you've seen the sign, once posted at Waterloo's computer centre:
"Consistency is the last refuge of an uncreative person."
?:-)
--
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.co.jp at relay.cs.net)
The above opinions are my own. | Why are programmers criticized for
If they're also your opinions, | re-implementing the wheel, when car
you're infringing my copyright. | manufacturers are praised for it?
More information about the Comp.std.c
mailing list