This particular case isn't that interesting because if the expression were equivalent to &(x+1) the compiler would complain about taking the address of a non-lv

This particular case isn't that interesting because if the expression were equivalent to &(x+1) the compiler would complain about taking the address of a non-lvalue. But ryanf, while not defending "that guy" (me), made my point for me: if I have to stop and think about whether -3^5 == -(3^5) because some hotshot didn't consider it manly to use parentheses, nobody wins. If I were writing that expression I'd use (yes, completely unnecessary) parentheses around &a out of habit... the same habit that wouldn't let me write -3^5. Either way, it doesn't burn any more cycles.