Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The declaration
> >
> > int x[2, 3];
> >
> > is not legal in C99, since "2, 3" is not an assignment-expression.
>
> I'm not a C99 language lawyer, but are you sure? Is the comma operator
> allowed there, or would one have to write "int x[(2,3)]" to get that
> behavior?
The definition of a direct-declarator, in 6.7.5/1, is
direct-declarator:
identifier
( declarator )
direct-declarator [ type-qualifier-list-opt assignment-expr-opt ]
direct-declarator [ static type-qualifier-list-opt assignment-expr ]
direct-declarator [ type-qualifier-list static assignment-expr ]
direct-declarator [ type-qualifier-list-opt * ]
direct-declarator ( parameter-type-list )
direct-declarator ( identifier-list-opt )
So you must have an assignment-expr in the brackets. The comma
operator is defined in 6.5.17
expression:
assignment-expr
expression , assignment-expr
so it is only allowed in expression, not in assignment-expression.
Writing "int x[(2,3)];" is most likely ill-formed as well (depending
on context). 2,3 is not a constant expression, as 6.6/3 says
[#3] Constant expressions shall not contain assignment,
increment, decrement, function-call, or comma operators,
except when they are contained within a subexpression that
is not evaluated.
So in C89, "int x[(2,3)];" is ill-formed, as the array bounds must be
a constant expression. In C99, this declares a variable-length array,
which may or may not be allowed depending on context.
Regards,
Martin
