From: xfesenko AT pacific DOT net DOT sg (Victor)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: [Q] expression evaluation order
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 16:43:41 GMT
Organization: Subscriber, Pacific Internet, Singapore
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <5sof2i$863$1@newton.pacific.net.sg>
References: <5sbb1h$kvr$1 AT newton DOT pacific DOT net DOT sg> <5sd0pd$k66$1 AT gte1 DOT gte DOT net> <33EA9D38 DOT 31561027 AT alcyone DOT com> <5sfpqj$rdk$1 AT gte2 DOT gte DOT net> <33EBB438 DOT 32888436 AT alcyone DOT com> <33EEC7BF DOT 1570 AT pentek DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dyn123ppp21.pacific.net.sg
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Charles Krug <charles AT pentek DOT com> wrote:

>Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> These compilers didn't even conform to traditional C, then.
>> 
>> --
>The original question that started this round:

>if (first() && second() && third())
>	(etc)


>How critical is your application, and how much interaction is there
>between the functions in question?

I've found this in a scanner control library code I needed to use, so
I was just wandering if I could use that code with DJGPP unaltered.
This expression is found many times in the library, but it conforms to
short-circuit requirements, described in other posts : the functions
have to be called in order (first(), second(), third() ) and if any of
them fails, then the functions returns with error message.

Regards.
Victor.