still problems with ?:

[Chris Torek]

[me:]
>>But e1?e2:e3 *can* be turned into (e1&&e2 || !e1&&e3)

In article <2632 at solo1.cs.vu.nl> maart at cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
>But what if e1 == *p++?

In the original bogus article (<17722 at mimsy.UUCP> [someday to be
mimsy.umd.edu]) I included various conditions, such as `no side
effects' and `used in a boolean context'.  I figured these were obvious
enough in the followup not to require another explication. . . .
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris at mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris