Re: A question on string literals
- From: Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:09:18 +0000 (UTC)
pete wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> pete wrote:
>>
>> >> > No, that is still allowed: The array 'decomposes' into a pointer
>> >>
>> >> Incorrect. Such decay happens only in value contexts,
>
> Where are you getting that from?
Well, I must admit I was getting it from Chris Torek's constant incantations
of "The Rule", and perhaps I was over-interpreting it. The fact remains
that the conversion you expect is not guaranteed by the Standard for the
simple reason that the code itself violates a constraint.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
mail: rjh at above domain
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A question on string literals
- From: Tim Rentsch
- Re: A question on string literals
- From: Chris Torek
- Re: A question on string literals
- References:
- A question on string literals
- From: junky_fellow
- Re: A question on string literals
- From: Sriram Rajagopalan
- Re: A question on string literals
- From: Chris Barts
- Re: A question on string literals
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: A question on string literals
- From: pete
- Re: A question on string literals
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: A question on string literals
- From: pete
- A question on string literals
- Prev by Date: Re: if (x && !(x & (x-1)) == 0)
- Next by Date: Re: compiling a hope interpreter
- Previous by thread: Re: A question on string literals
- Next by thread: Re: A question on string literals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|