J
Joe Smith
K & R A8.2 begins:
The type specifiers are
[italics:] type-specifier
void
.
.
.
[italics:] typedef-name
At most one of the ....
[end quote]
One would think that when I cast with a (short) instead of a (short*) today
that I would have had my fill of embarrassment. True enough, but since I'm
going to play poker now, the ignorance that underlies this question will be
absorbed on tomorrow's ration. Is it intentional that all those terms lie
under 'specifier' as opposed to 'type'? Don't think I'm being hard on
myself for the miscast; it wasn't the main point of the thread of which I
was the OP, but within horseshoe distance thereof. My guess is that (long *)
is a type as well as (long followed by 7 asterisks): distinct from all
others. joe
The type specifiers are
[italics:] type-specifier
void
.
.
.
[italics:] typedef-name
At most one of the ....
[end quote]
One would think that when I cast with a (short) instead of a (short*) today
that I would have had my fill of embarrassment. True enough, but since I'm
going to play poker now, the ignorance that underlies this question will be
absorbed on tomorrow's ration. Is it intentional that all those terms lie
under 'specifier' as opposed to 'type'? Don't think I'm being hard on
myself for the miscast; it wasn't the main point of the thread of which I
was the OP, but within horseshoe distance thereof. My guess is that (long *)
is a type as well as (long followed by 7 asterisks): distinct from all
others. joe