Re: pointer q

"Joe Smith" <grumpy196884@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
A recent post of mine showed a sufficiently large gaffe on pointers as to
need to return to K&R 5.1-6 appendix A8.6.1 . So we have type specifiers:
int
long
. One dreams himself variable names: qwe, qwr, writes

int qwe;
long qwr;

and thinks he knows what types he's declared. Had you asked me about:

int *qwe;
long *qwr;

I would have said the pointers declared were--while pointng to different
types--of the same type. Why am I wrong? Joe

int* and long* are two different types (both pointer types).

I'm curious, what led you to think that they're the same type?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@xxxxxxx <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
.

Relevant Pages

  • pointer q
    ... A recent post of mine showed a sufficiently large gaffe on pointers as to ... One dreams himself variable names: qwe, qwr, writes ... int qwe; ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: pointer q
    ... qwe, qwr, writes ... int qwe; ... You can do the assignments with explicit conversion, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: pointer q
    ... qwe, qwr, writes ... int qwe; ... Joe ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: pointer q
    ... Joe Smith wrote: ... qwe, qwr, writes ... int qwe; ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: pointer q
    ... Joe Smith wrote: ... qwe, qwr, writes ... int qwe; ... If it is true that memory is a bunch of boxes with numbers on the side and that different implementations may have differing sizes of pointers, then the numbers on the sides of those boxes are less homogenous than I thought. ...
    (comp.lang.c)