Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: lawrence.jones@xxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:13:01 GMT
Felix Kater <f.kater2@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> when accessing the variables in a struct: What's the reason why in C
> you have -> and . instead of only . ? Are there cases in which the
> compiler couldn't figure out what to do?
Not anymore. But back in the dark ages, C was much less concerned about
types than it is today and would allow pretty much *anything* as the
left operand of . or ->. In that environment, the compiler couldn't
figure out what to do, so having two different operators was essential.
-Larry Jones
It's no fun to play games with a poor sport. -- Calvin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Chris Torek
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Lew Pitcher
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Guillaume
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- References:
- why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Felix Kater
- why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Prev by Date: Re: Floatin point issues
- Next by Date: Re: Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0
- Previous by thread: Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Next by thread: Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
