curiousEngine wrote:
> if (A > B){
> if (A > C)
> max = A;
> } else {
> if (B > C)
> max = B;
> else if (C > A)
> max = C;
> }

If you want to do your homework in a bit more obfuscated way, you can
do that with a one-liner:

max = A > B ? A > C ? A : C : B > C ? B : C;

On Oct 15, 1:01 pm, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> If you want to do your homework in a bit more obfuscated way, you can
> do that with a one-liner:
>
> max = A > B ? A > C ? A : C : B > C ? B : C;

I compiled this, with appropriate int main etc.
added to make a complete program. It printed out
the words to Aida.
Socks

Puppet_Sock wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:01 pm, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> [snip]
>> If you want to do your homework in a bit more obfuscated way, you can
>> do that with a one-liner:
>>
>> max = A > B ? A > C ? A : C : B > C ? B : C;
>
> I compiled this, with appropriate int main etc.
> added to make a complete program. It printed out
> the words to Aida.

Are you trying to imply that the standard doesn't define precedence
rules for nested ?: operators?

I suppose you could make it more unambiguous by using clarifying
parentheses, like:

max = A > B ? (A > C ? A : C) : (B > C ? B : C);

However, are they really necessary (except for the human reader)?