On 05/30/2009 04:19 PM, Omer Zak wrote:
> In addition, rem is left unchanged by the above statement.
> The value of rem-- is rem, with the side effect of decrementing rem by
> 1.
> Then the value of rem-- is assigned to rem - leaving it unchanged.
> With --rem instead of rem-- the statement works as expected.
>
Yes. There is a warning output anyway.
This is being fixed.
--rem is also undefined in that case. You'd get the same warning.
Hub
Received on Sat May 30 23:06:48 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 30 2009 - 23:06:48 CEST