From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1df6bc3799debed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical,
Date: 1997/05/04
Message-ID: <5kj7sg$hn9$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 239372140
References: <x7vohassedl.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk> <5kgu95$kb7@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>
 <dewar.862775250@merv>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.862775250@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>  How can it ever be friendly to hide a ++ in a macro, such that the
>  peculiar rules about not using more than one ++ in an expression
>  suddenly apply in a hidden manner to the macro, Ugh!

The classic is when you have the common macro:

#define MIN(X,Y) ((X) < (Y) ? (X) : (Y))

And then forget what the macro expands to and use MIN (a[n++])
someplace.  Of course, not only is that particular case undefined, but
it might increment N twice.