Why is C compiler stubborn ?

[pete]

p> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=typecast

Only the most comprehensive dictionaries will include
definitions of technical jargon

I never have and never will use a standard English dictionary
to get the definition of a technical term in C programming.
I am vehemently opposed to doing that.

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

p> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=typecast

p> I never have and never will use a standard English dictionary
p> to get the definition of a technical term in C programming. I
p> am vehemently opposed to doing that.

.....which is exactly what you did in the post I responded to.

Your opposition does not seem to be as vehement as you claim it is, sir.

Charlton

 

[pete]

p> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=typecast


p> I never have and never will use a standard English dictionary
p> to get the definition of a technical term in C programming. I
p> am vehemently opposed to doing that.

....which is exactly what you did in the post I responded to.

No.
"Typecast" isn't a technical term in C programming.

 

[santosh]

No.
"Typecast" isn't a technical term in C programming.

In a sense it is, if you consider that a large corpus of C programmers
use that term. It's just not described in the Standard.

 

[pete]

pete wrote:

In a sense it is, if you consider that a large corpus of C programmers
use that term.

In that same sense,
a C programmer should also cast the return value of malloc.

The errors that regularly get corrected on this newsgroup
are committed by a large corpus of C programmers.

 

[Chris Dollin]

What's with all you people rushing forward to boast of your ignorance?
Your not having come across "typecast" proves nothing.

You implied that not having come across the term "typecast" meant that
one hadn't done serious Pascal programming.

It now appears even the ignorant (or perhaps just the ancient) can write
serious Pascal programs without knowing the term "typecast". Yes?