Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C history question
Keywords: C design, XOR
Message-ID: <596@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 28 Sep 89 14:31:11 GMT
References: <10390@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <29557@news.Think.COM> <883@friar-taac.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center
Lines: 22

In article <29557@news.Think.COM> barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) writes:
|
|	allok = allok && a[i++] > b[j++]
|
|then the side effects on i and j would be different from
|
|	allok &= a[i++] > b[j++]
|
|The first must NOT increment i and j when allok is true, while the
|second MUST increment them in any case.

  What are you saying here? The & and && operators work diferently. I
also think the *effect* of thew first example would be easier to
understand if you wrote:
  if (!allok) allok = a[i++] > b[j++]
but that's a matter of preference. Yes I know, some people like
(allok == 0) better.
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon