From 4299b9bcf997cd7e115315f1eec51debfcfd8d5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: EL MEHDI NHD <123629444+mido-dev1@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 23:32:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix Markdown typo + Fix the answer of question 3.

Fix of the answer of question 3 is based on [https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_precedence.html#cite_note-3](https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_precedence.html#cite_note-3)
;)
---
 note/answers/chapter17_compiling.md | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/note/answers/chapter17_compiling.md b/note/answers/chapter17_compiling.md
index bd0a7c7ae..7595c72a5 100644
--- a/note/answers/chapter17_compiling.md
+++ b/note/answers/chapter17_compiling.md
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-##1
+## 1
 
 It's:
 
@@ -51,19 +51,19 @@ The `?:` operator has lower precedence than almost anything, so we add a new `PR
 static void conditional()
 {
   // Compile the then branch.
-  parsePrecedence(compiler, PREC_CONDITIONAL);
+  parsePrecedence(compiler, PREC_ASSIGNMENT);
 
   consume(compiler, TOKEN_COLON,
           "Expect ':' after then branch of conditional operator.");
 
   // Compile the else branch.
-  parsePrecedence(compiler, PREC_ASSIGNMENT);
+  parsePrecedence(compiler, PREC_CONDITIONAL);
 }
 ```
 
 Of course a full implementation needs more code to actually do the conditional
 evaluation, but that should compile the operands with the right precedence. Note
 that the precedence of the operands is a little unusual. The precedence of the
-last operand is *lower* than the conditional expression itself.
+middle operand is *lower* than the conditional expression itself.
 
 That might be surprising, but it's how C rolls.