From -7787341105811466135 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,20d4605c5c59d328 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) Subject: Re: Operator precedence Date: 1998/01/30 Message-ID: <6ar20h$io3@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 320441608 References: <34D0D0B5.BFB28C88@utsw.swmed.edu> X-Original-Date: 29 Jan 1998 23:05:53 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBFAgUANNEwuOEDnX0m9pzZAQHwxgF+LQWoK7+1Tv1Nkkk4+08B9+pTQkceH9BT NYCFJzyQCEZ4t6SLI3NLAbBEKQ0zsN5v =k8r8 Reply-To: clamage@Eng.Sun.COM Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article BFB28C88@utsw.swmed.edu, Zhiming Zhou writes: >In many books, including "The C++ Programming language, 2ed" (pp. 90), >conditional operator (? :) has higher precedence than assignment (=). >However, in the book "The C++ Programming language, 3ed" (pp. 121), it's >the other way around. Can somebody tell me why? It's an error in the book. See the errata list on Stroustrup's home page http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd_errata.html --- Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ] [ Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ] [ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]