Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!boring!guido
From: guido@boring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: && evaluation order (Re: C style)
Message-ID: <6674@boring.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 14:31:39 EST
Article-I.D.: boring.6674
Posted: Fri Nov  1 14:31:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 09:29:32 EST
References: <259@3comvax.UUCP> <538@ttrdc.UUCP>
Reply-To: guido@mcvax.UUCP (Guido van Rossum)
Organization: "Stamp Out BASIC" Committee, CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 11
Summary: is GUARANTEED left-to-right
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL

In article <538@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
>The && operator
>doesn't GUARANTEE the chronological order of evaluation is going to be left
>to right, if you have a screwball compiler (though it most probably will be).

If your compiler doesn't evaluate && left-to-right (and stop after the first
zero result) it isn't implementing C.    Maybe you're confusing it with
Pascal's AND or C's single & operators, which have to evaluate both operands.
So the program fragment you commented on was perfectly legit in using &&.

	Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam (guido@mcvax.UUCP)