From: Friedrich Dominicus <frido@...>
Date: 2002-10-11T12:56:05+09:00
Subject: Re: a strange construct (which lead to unspecified behavior AFAIK)

"Peter Schueller" <peter.schueller@solution-x.com> writes:

> of course the first code will work
> because ny-- is a post-decrement (so it would not matter anyway)
> and because the && operator is 'shortcut-evaluated' and that means
> that the first operand MUST be evaluated before the second
> (if the first evaluates to 0, the second will not even be evaluated)
> 
> also, your re-written piece of code will exit with ny 1 higher than matz's
> code
Ah yes I see.

One should check before posting and not just rely on one's memory...

Anyway the other points still stand as I wrote.
- reliance on compiler internals
- another things which I still find not good are the comparisons of 
signed and unsigned and handling unsigned integer as if they were
signed. 

Why is that?


Regards
Friedrich