Can we use break statement in conditional operator?

[jayapal]

Hi

the scenario is like this:

func()
{
....
....

char *p= (char *)&str[0];
while (p)
*++p=='$' ? break:(*p != ' ' ? return error : )
.....
.....

}

can i use conditional operator like these

[James Kuyper]

jayapal wrote:

Hi

the scenario is like this:

func()
{
...
...

char *p= (char *)&str[0];
while (p)
*++p=='$' ? break:(*p != ' ' ? return error : )

No. the second operand in a conditional-expression is required to be an
expression. 'break;' and 'return error;' are statements, not an expressions.

[vipvipvipvipvip.ru]

Notice if str[] = "$" your func() will.. 'fail'.
Also, you want while(*p) and not while(p).
Also, if str is of type char * or char[], the cast is not needed.
&str[0] is a char *.

int func(const char * str) {

while(!isspace(*str))
if(*str == '$') break;

return *str == '$';
}

[vipvipvipvipvip.ru]

On Oct 30, 2:11 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

while(!isspace(*str))

sorry, while(*str && !isspace(*str))

[vipvipvipvipvip.ru]

On Oct 30, 2:12 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

On Oct 30, 2:11 pm, [e-mail] wrote:while(!isspace(*str))

sorry, while(*str && !isspace(*str))

Damn, i don't increment str in the loop.
Sorry for this; it's been a long day

[Chris Dollin]

jayapal wrote:

Hi

the scenario is like this:

func()
{
...
...

char *p= (char *)&str[0];
while (p)
*++p=='$' ? break:(*p != ' ' ? return error : )
....
....

}

can i use conditional operator like these

As at least one other person has said, no. And even if you /could/,
you couldn't write what you wrote, because there's nothing after
the second `:`. And even if you could do /that/, what exactly is
this loop supposed to accomplish? It /looks/ like (fx:emulate) it
skips the first character [if any] and then skips spaces and
either returns the error value if it's not at $-or-eos, or
falls through pointing at $-or-eos.

If so, I would have thought:

char *p = str; /* suspect the casting and indexing useless */

if (*p) p += 1;
while (*p == ' ') p += 1;

if (*p == '$') { whatever } else return error;

was more transparent. (I have a stylistic preference away from using
++ when the result isn't consumed; feel free to replace `p += 1` by
`p++` in the above if you have the reverse preference.)

--
Chris "would generally /prefer/ that `break` etc were expressions" Dollin

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell,
registered no: 690597 England Berks RG12 1HN