On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 06:10:42PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote: >As I noted previously, I thought it could be a source of confusion >since this behaviour is not documented and is not widely know.
?: *is* a documented gcc extension. >I, myself, had to rummage through the GCC source code to be absolutely >certain what the implict behavior was. Wow. Rummaging through the source. Incredible. "info gcc" is your friend. No. We're not going to change the use of ?:.
