2009/4/19 Jason Mancini <jayrus...@hotmail.com>: > >> Vincent Lefevre writes: >> while ((*(q++))-- == 0) ; > > Is that defined and legal?? Is q incremented before or after *q is > decremented? They are both post operators! > Jason Mancini
It's defined and legal (so long as q != &q, which might well be guaranteed by the type system for an incrementable q -- it's late, and I might be missing a counterexample to that). The order of the increment/decrement makes no difference except in the pathological case where they attempt to change the same object (and in that case, the behavior is undefined). Note: the decrement is done to *initial_value_of_q, as q++ evaluates to a copy of q's initial value. q could even be incremented before that, so long as the decrement still applies to *initial_value_of_q. All of this assumes the absence of "volatile", of course. -- James
