that is bug?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday, April 08, 2018 16:59:35 Patrick Schluter via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 8 April 2018 at 16:47:59 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> > On Sunday, 8 April 2018 at 10:03:33 UTC, kdevel wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 8 April 2018 at 07:22:19 UTC, Patrick Schluter
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> To summarize: C++ works as expected and C prevents the
> >> assigment because the conditional operator does not yield an
> >
> >> l-value:
> > Exactly
> >
> >
> > Now, the only thing is to clearly define what it is in D, as
> > apparently it is neither the C++ nor the C behaviour. The old
> > precedence table on the D wiki seems to say it is like C, but
> > the example of that thread seems to show it's not.
>
> To follow up. What's surprizing for a C guy like me is that D
> accepts without problems
>
>     (a=1)=2;
>
> i.e. that (a=1) is a lvalue.

I would fully expect it to be assignable, but I'm a C++ guy, not a C guy. I
just tried it with both C, C++, and D though, and it does indeed fail to
compile with C while it compiles perfectly fine with C++ and D.

- Jonathan M Davis