On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 1:08 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The reason why I think the lvalue of a "=" operator can be argued to be
> "special" is because it is simply invalid to apply many of the C
> operators to an lvalue (e.g. +, -, /, ...),
Mathieu, you are simply objectively wrong.
See here:
#define m1(x) (x = 2)
#define m2(x) ((x) = 2)
and then try using the argument "a = b" to those macros.
Guess which one flags it as an error ("lvalue required") and which one does not?
m2 is the only "good" one. Yes, m1 works in 99% of all cases in
practice, but if you want a safer macro, you *will* add the
parentheses.
So *STOP*ARGUING* based on an incorrect "lowest precedence" basis.
Even for the "lowest precedence" case, you have the *same* precedence.
The fact is, assignment is not in any way special operation in macros,
and does not deserve - and should absolutely not have - any special
"doesn't need parentheses around argument" rules.
Linus
