Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbneb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!cbneb!adm From: adm@cbneb.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: C subscripts Message-ID: <2433@cbneb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 20:39:01 EST Article-I.D.: cbneb.2433 Posted: Fri Nov 30 20:39:01 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 02:49:51 EST Sender: adm@cbneb.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OHIO Lines: 9 Nf-ID: #R:mouton:-19500:cbnap:16200006:000:367 Nf-From: cbnap!whp Oct 28 14:03:00 1984 >Now, BEFROE the flames start I KNOW the comma operator exists. >This is not overloading because subscripts are expressions, not statements. >So don't start quoting K&R pg 192 to me. You're wrong; it IS overloading BECAUSE subscripts are expressions. Thus, "array[t=3, t+2]" is equivalent to "array[5]". Your proposed use of the comma would therefore be ambiguous.