Re: ?: as an lvalue

[Richard Tobin]

In article <fsrdh6$ikl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard  <devr_@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Well, unary '*' operator is also not a macro. Yet it evaluates to an
>> lvalue. Same for '[]' operator (by definition). Do you find this
>> strange as well?

>I think you have lost the track with all due respect. His original did
>produce an lvalue but a value.

I think the point was that * is an example of an operator that produces
an lvalue, so it's not necessarily unreasonable for the ?: operator to.

-- Richard
-- 
:wq