Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: anon7843@xxxxxxxxxxx (Anonymous 7843)
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:00:27 GMT
In article <da172g$2cp$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard Tobin <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Is it a disaster that if foo is a function
>pointer you can say foo(1) instead of (*foo)(1)?
Of course it is. Clearly, the syntax for a call through a function
pointer should be foo->(1).
--
7842++
.
- References:
- why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Felix Kater
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: lawrence . jones
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Guillaume
- Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- From: Richard Tobin
- why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Prev by Date: Re: printf() with too many args -- legal?
- Next by Date: Re: Libraries, function names and link
- Previous by thread: Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Next by thread: Re: why use -> (not .) with pointers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
