Need a little guidance??

[himanjim]

Can u anybody of u explain me how the following statement works??
y=x++<=5;:!:

[Dave Sinkula]

If x is less than or equal to 5, y is set to 1 -- otherwise y is set to 0; x is then incremented.

But better would be for you to ask, "I think that this statement does [...]. Is this correct?" Or at least provide a (minimal, but complete and compileable) snippet that shows the full context.

[WolfPack]

If x is less than or equal to 5, y is set to 1 -- otherwise y is set to 0; x is then incremented.

Is x incremented before or after the result of the comparison is assigned to y? Correct me if I am wrong in the explaination below. y=x++<=5; is equivalent to y=(x++<=5); .
The part inside the brackets should be evaluated first. So doesn't that mean the binary comparison and the ++ should also be evaluated before the assignment?

[Dave Sinkula]

Is x incremented before or after the result of the comparison is assigned to y?

After.

Correct me if I am wrong in the explaination below. y=x++<=5; is equivalent to y=(x++<=5); .
The part inside the brackets should be evaluated first. So doesn't that mean the binary comparison and the ++ should also be evaluated before the assignment?

No.

[WolfPack]

So the error was this statement? y=x++<=5; is equivalent to y=(x++<=5); .

[Dave Sinkula]

No.
http://c-faq.com/expr/precvsooe.html

[himanjim]

So the error was this statement? y=x++<=5; is equivalent to y=(x++<=5); .

This is the case of post incrementation so increment is done after the comparision.

[WolfPack]

I know that it is done after the comparison. I wanted to know if it was done after or before the assignment.

[himanjim]

My knowledge suggest that asignment is done before the incrementation.

[Dave Sinkula]

I know that it is done after the comparison. I wanted to know if it was done after or before the assignment.

I'll go out on a limb a little (and search more later) and say that it is done after the comparison and before the assignment.

[WolfPack]

Grr.

[Dave Sinkula]

Now just to be an ass I'll change my mind and reverse that last statement of mine.

No, not just to be an ass:
http://c-faq.com/expr/seqpoints.html

My question is why? Why is it a curiousity? Why not just write it without ambiguity?

[WolfPack]

Now just to be an ass I'll change my mind and reverse that last statement of mine.

No, not just to be an ass:
http://c-faq.com/expr/seqpoints.html

Snarl.

My question is why? Why is it a curiousity? Why not just write it without ambiguity?

When I write code I try to be clear and without ambiguity. But I can't give a answer like that when a newbie asks something about operator call sequence. So I have to be careful on subtle points like that (especially since I am a mod). I will go through the link and see what I can make out from it. :)

[Dave Sinkula]

I will go through the link and see what I can make out from it. :)

What I got from it was this:

The sequence points listed in the C standard are:

• at the end of the evaluation of a full expression (a full expression is an expression statement, or any other expression which is not a subexpression within any larger expression);
• at the ||, &&, ?:, and comma operators; and
• at a function call (after the evaluation of all the arguments, and just before the actual call).

Conspicuously missing was the assignment operator.

I still find sequence points confusing, so I do my best simply to avoid writing code that makes great use of knowing exactly where they are.