On 7/31/2011 3:28 AM, dennis luehring wrote:
but i think clang was right with Walters code - i do not understand
why he splits up the A and B conditional block into spereated ones when
B does not work if A wasn't true before... makes it sense (in exactly
this case) to write the code like he does?
What I meant was:
"A" represents an expression
"B" represents a different expression than "A", but is true if and only if "A"
is true.
For example:
"A" might be: x=0;x=a->b->c?1:0;a->b->c
"B" might be: x
