Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: "Suman" <skarpio@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2005 07:13:44 -0700
Richard Tobin wrote:
[snip]
>
> I think the answer is just that they are different operations so C has
> different names for them. a->b is equivalent to (*a).b.
Don't you think that was what I meant, albeit in a roundabout way?
You don't I'll assume for now :)
<i_think_remotely_O(n)T(opic)>
In any case, this fires my curiosity. What if we did have the _same_
operator? Would the compiler not have to extra work?
</i_think_remotely_O(n)T(opic)>
> A less
> explicit language than C might confound these, but C doesn't.
.
- References:
- why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Felix Kater
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Suman
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Richard Tobin
- why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Prev by Date: Re: Floatin point issues
- Next by Date: Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Previous by thread: Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Next by thread: Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
