Re: Does this make any sense?

From: infobahn (infobahn_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 01/09/05 

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:36:42 +0000 (UTC)

Derrick Coetzee wrote:

<snip>

> Although there's only one cast in the original statement, all of the
> above casts happen implicitly.

You run the risk of confusing newbies.

A cast is an *explicit* conversion. Casts cannot happen implicitly.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 0/1 Knapsack problem, what am I doing wrong
    ... malloc is the right thing to do in C. ... potentially unsafe conversion. ... once they have been reviewed and regarded as safe. ... the casts as well) is not significant. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Type-checking casts for GNU C
    ... data (Obviously for those casts which won't face diagnostics). ... a cast specifies a type conversion. ... representation of the value, but that's not what the conversion means. ... Yes of course for example when a unsigned int casted to signed int IMHO ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: On "type casting"
    ... whether used in reference to an implicit conversion or an explicit ... "explicit cast" is again redundant, since casts are always ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Type-checking casts for GNU C
    ... data (Obviously for those casts which won't face diagnostics). ... representation of the value, but that's not what the conversion means. ... happens when in C++ a cast needs diagnostics but C style won't, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Type-checking casts for GNU C
    ... data (Obviously for those casts which won't face diagnostics). ... a cast specifies a type conversion. ... happens when in C++ a cast needs diagnostics but C style won't, ...
    (comp.lang.c)