Re: ?: as an lvalue

[Andrey Tarasevich]

Richard wrote:
> > Richard wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > 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.
> > > because its not a macro? it returns a value. I dont know the legalise
> > > words but it seems "obvious" enough to me, but again it might be because
> > > I am tainted.
> > 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.
>
> The "*" made it then an lvalue in the other case.
>
> I dont really know what we are aguing.

I'm not really arguing. The way I interpreted your responses, it seemed 
that when someone said that in C++ '?:' would return an lvalue in this 
case, you essentially made it clear that you find it unnatural and/or 
illogical (again, the way I interpreted your responses). I just want to 
know what is it exactly that you find unnatural and/or illogical.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich