From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 22 Jun 93 15:33:02 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!cs
n!nugget.rmNUG.ORG!nugget.rmNUG.ORG!rlove@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Software vendors not using Ada but C
Message-ID: <1993Jun22.153302.5375@nugget.rmNUG.ORG>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <20366@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard  
A. O'Keefe) writes:
>
> > Consider the generic C statement:  c=a+++b;  .  > > This
> ambiguous statement can mean four things which are all equally
> > admissible as ANSI C:
>
> This is outrageously false.  The ISO standard, section 6, subsection
> Semantics, paragraph 2, and example 2 make it crystal clear that
> there is precisely one way of dividing this into tokens:
>	{c} {=} {a} {++} {+} {b} {;} The grammar admits only one
> parse, and that parse admits only the interpretation > 3.  c =
> a + b ;  a = a + 1 ; (If c and a are aliases, the construct is
> explicitly undefined.)
>

The original claim startled me into action.  I tested this on 3
compilers, 2 for DOS and gcc on Unix.  All three got the same
results and they matched option 3, that is a + b; a = a + 1;

I personally hate  C and want all the ammunition against it I can
get but false claims such as this don't help.

-- 

Bob Love                            	rlove@raptor.rmnug  (NeXT Mail OK)
					BIX: rlove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------