Documentation bug for __builtin_choose_expr

[Robert Dewar]

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> writes:
> 
> 
>>     This built-in function is analogous to the `? :' operator in C,
>>     except that the expression returned has its type unaltered by
>>     promotion rules.  Unlike most built-in functions, but like the
>>     `? :' operator, this built-in function does not evaluate the
>>     expression that was not chosen.  For example, if CONST_EXP
>>     evaluates to true, EXP2 is not evaluated even if it has
>>     side-effects.
> 
> 
> IMHO, "but like the `? :' operator" could be removed without any negative
> impact (anyone who doesn't know how the ?: operator should not look at
> builtins either :-) ).

Why remove it? It only makes things clearer ... Documentation is about
making things clear, we are not writing a language standard here, where
redundancy is to be avoided. Perhaps it would make things clearer to put
this parenthetical remark in parentheses
> 
> Andreas.
> 

 >>     This built-in function is analogous to the `? :' operator in C,
 >>     except that the expression returned has its type unaltered by
 >>     promotion rules.  Unlike most built-in functions (but like the
 >>     `? :' operator), this built-in function does not evaluate the
 >>     expression that was not chosen.  For example, if CONST_EXP
 >>     evaluates to true, EXP2 is not evaluated even if it has
 >>     side-effects.