🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <86900015@haddock> karl@haddock.UUCP writes:
>... "(e1?e2:e3),e4".

It occurred to me that there is a workaround which deals not only with the
void case, but also with the case where the types of e2 and e3 are different
(and the result is to be ignored): "e1?(e2,0):(e3,0)".  I'm not sure whether
to recommend this in cases where an expression is required instead of a
statement, or to draw back in horror.

>For another, the types might be
>unknown, if they are arguments in a macro; in this case I would want the
>macro to work on void as well as valued expressions.

This case is not covered by my suggestion.  I find it hard to imagine doing
it, however.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108