type specifiers

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Joe Smith, May 15, 2006.

  1. Joe Smith

    Joe Smith Guest

    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
    Joe Smith, May 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe Smith

    Joe Smith Guest

    OP's post likely made less sense than usual.
    Better treatment here:
    news:
    joe
    Joe Smith, May 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe Smith

    CBFalconer Guest

    Joe Smith wrote:
    >
    > OP's post likely made less sense than usual.
    > Better treatment here:
    > news:


    This is supposed to make sense?

    --
    "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
    the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
    "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
    "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
    More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
    Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
    CBFalconer, May 17, 2006
    #3
  4. CBFalconer wrote:
    > Joe Smith wrote:
    > >
    > > OP's post likely made less sense than usual.
    > > Better treatment here:
    > > news:

    >
    > This is supposed to make sense?


    I doubt it. The recent posts by this Joe Smith have a style that is
    reminiscent of those by "Merrill & Michele" and I have given up trying
    to decipher them.

    Robert Gamble
    Robert Gamble, May 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Joe Smith

    Joe Smith Guest

    "Robert Gamble" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > CBFalconer wrote:
    >> Joe Smith wrote:
    >> >
    >> > OP's post likely made less sense than usual.
    >> > Better treatment here:
    >> > news:

    >>
    >> This is supposed to make sense?

    Yes. Apparently it doesn't.

    > I doubt it. The recent posts by this Joe Smith have a style that is
    > reminiscent of those by "Merrill & Michele" and I have given up trying
    > to decipher them.

    I wasn't aware that I was ciphering. joe
    Joe Smith, May 17, 2006
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pep
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    631
  2. Tobias
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    14,091
  3. Rennie deGraaf

    throw specifiers only when debugging

    Rennie deGraaf, Mar 3, 2005, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    674
    Artie Gold
    Mar 3, 2005
  4. aneesh

    Storage specifiers

    aneesh, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    938
  5. Ben Pfaff

    Re: C# format Specifiers Help.

    Ben Pfaff, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    400
    Ben Pfaff
    Aug 21, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page