🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov03.074747.16658@x.co.uk> clive@x.co.uk (Clive
Feather) writes:

> > "A string literal is a primary expression.
> >  It is an lvalue..."
> >
> > It's an LVALUE.  This means that,
> >	"foo" = "bar";
> > is legal.  Right?

> Wrong. It's not a *modifiable* lvalue.

Many others have pointed out the same thing, but...

Unless I've misunderstood something here, a string literal is an
array.  Within an expression, except as the operand of sizeof, an
array decays to a (constant) address of the first element of the
array.  I don't believe that this is an lvalue, any more than the
constant 1 is an lvalue.

Even if you replace "foo" by a modifiable array, the given statement
is still illegal.

The fact that a string literal is not *modifiable* refers more to
expressions like:

	*"foo" = 'g' ;

This is a syntactically correct statement.  I do not think that a
conforming compiler can refuse to compile it.  (It may warn about it.)
What actually happens on execution is implementation dependant,
however.  This implementation dependancy is what is meant by declaring
a string literal to be non-modifiable.
--
James Kanze                         GABI Software, Sarl.
email: kanze@us-es.sel.de           8 rue du Faisan
                                    67000 Strasbourg
                                    France