Re: ?: as an lvalue

[Andrey Tarasevich]

Willem wrote:
> ) > ...
> )> But (c?x:y)=v;
> )> I dont really know what to say. 
> )
> ) Is there any reason why you believe that the property of "being an 
> ) lvalue" should be necessarily lost in the process of selection from two 
> ) lvalues of the same type?
> )
> ) I mean I'm OK personally with the way it works in C. I just like to know 
> ) what is it exactly in '(c?x:y)=v' that triggers a "I don't really know 
> ) what to say" reaction from some people.
>
> Well then why not also make it possible for functions (that return
>  pointers) to be lvalues ?
>
>   returnspointertostruct(foo)->bar = baz;
>
> Or is that already legal ?

This is perfectly legal. It's just that has nothing to do with the 
function. Function still returns a non-lvalue. The left-hand side 
expression though

  (non-lvalue pointer)->bar

is an lvalue. This why you can assign to it.

What's illegal is this

  returnsstruct(foo).bar = baz;

i.e. function returns a 'struct' in this case .

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich