Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {}
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 09:02:58 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <ln60o53m4t.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <f04d8120-e4c9-464b-923c-7dc262da5b5b@googlegroups.com> <nv7jub$7ff$1@dont-email.me> <nv7lvk$eml$1@dont-email.me> <ln1syw5zca.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <f9e8beb3-c844-4c43-a114-eeeae8e2a1a7@googlegroups.com> <5a9aae7f-eb86-4c7b-bc93-142504b1d0a9@googlegroups.com> <nv7rr1$5e3$1@dont-email.me> <49899127-bf04-4a84-a374-5bebfbe7f4f7@googlegroups.com> <fcaf090e-8d21-42fe-805e-ce1cbcc5d725@googlegroups.com> <bc31d2f8-1b50-4ab8-bf70-e9c61f510735@googlegroups.com> <nv8l1m$2oq$1@dont-email.me> <2bf83e98-eb96-4ab6-b1ca-4e6a8bd824f5@googlegroups.com> <5b33a608-8f61-4ea0-be08-080018f5772c@googlegroups.com> <nv8r1c$i54$1@dont-email.me> <87mvhjo3jw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nv9ubc$7uf$1@dont-email.me> <877f8no0xv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nvac00$l7o$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <4efe17d0-95cb-421c-9a19-410c1e5f1a34@googlegroups.com> <nvbi89$sh2$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> <31964aba-3f33-44bb-be1c-6e849fe631fc@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="55d562a779fc0ae2b1f2a983cf45db85"; logging-data="30201"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zMOeoyTf47KSbnM5y6gp2"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oRBbBiFwenBIbTSeYHQIs66C0WA= sha1:adZEBX6uUltL6cb/hpr0IzZzjnc=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:95596

jameskuyper@verizon.net writes:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 10:16:12 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
[...]
>> So ?: is not an operator.
>> 
>> Right...  Too bad the standard disagrees with you.
>
> Yes, but more importantly, it's bad that the standard disagrees with
> itself. And of course you'll claim that this is just due to my
> misreading the standard, without bothering to identify how you think
> I've misread it.

How does the standard disagree with itself?

The definition of "operator" is in N1570 6.4.6p2 (italics indicated
*like this*):

    A punctuator is a symbol that has independent syntactic and
    semantic significance.  Depending on context, it may specify an
    operation to be performed (which in turn may yield a value or a
    function designator, produce a side effect, or some combination
    thereof) in which case it is known as an *operator* (other
    forms of operator also exist in some contexts). An *operand*
    is an entity on which an operator acts.

The "other forms of operator" clause covers operators like ?:, [], and
the cast operator that aren't single punctuators.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"