> > >       for (pass=rx_str[ptr1+1]; ptr1<size && pass; ptr1++) {
> > >
> > >       2. if so, is it the same as saying 'ptr1<size && ptr1<pass' ?

I think the source of the confusion is operator precedence.  The logical
operators (&&, ||) have lower precedence than math comparison, so:

a.      ptr1<size && pass

Is the same as

b.      (ptr1<size) && pass

Which is the same as

c.      (ptr<size) && (pass != 0)

While the rules are fixed and eventually decipherable, they're confusing
enough at this end of things that most code reviewer here would ask the
code to be changed to at least form "b"...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu