Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:24:29 +0200
Walter Roberson wrote:
In article <g248q6$3u7$1@xxxxxxxx>, jacob navia <jacob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
6.7.2 Type specifiers
Each list of type specifiers shall be one of the following sets (delimited by commas, when there is
more than one set on a line); the type specifiers may occur in any order, possibly
intermixed with the other declaration specifiers.
Notice that bit about "in any order". So long long int is the
same as long int long .
And why is not long int, then long?
What about
int int int m;
And any kind of nonsense you can think about?
long signed long int,
signed long int long,
signed long signed long,
signed int long signed long int
long int long int
long int int long
ad nauseum?
I just use the last one parsed.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Richard Bos
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Bartc
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Flash Gordon
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Antoninus Twink
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- References:
- is order urgent doubt
- From: new to c
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: jacob navia
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Flash Gordon
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: jacob navia
- Re: is order urgent doubt
- From: Walter Roberson
- is order urgent doubt
- Prev by Date: Re: Implicit loop and reading in an unknown number of variables
- Next by Date: Re: Bug/problem with lcc-win
- Previous by thread: Re: is order urgent doubt
- Next by thread: Re: is order urgent doubt
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|