Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #7668

Re: A C without void*

From Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: A C without void*
Date 2011-07-05 08:46 -0700
Organization None to speak of
Message-ID <lniprg3f3k.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References <%1thp.70888$2_5.22463@newsfe25.ams2> <iuu7ft$h9p$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

"MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> writes:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> Why does C have void* ? Imagine a C' where the functionality that
>> void* provides would be provided instead by unsigned char* plus what
>> unsigned char* usually does. In what way would C' be inferior to C ?''
>
> Well you fucked up that question royally. 

The question was posted over 3 months ago.  Why are you responding with
this nonsense now?

For that matter, why are you posting here at all?  Do you intend to make
any constructive contributions here?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: A C without void* "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-05 00:29 -0500
  Re: A C without void* Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 08:46 -0700
  Re: A C without void* Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 22:11 +0300
    Re: A C without void* James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 22:46 -0400
    Re: A C without void* Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-09 02:58 +0100
    Re: A C without void* Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-09 07:18 +0100
      Re: A C without void* Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 04:39 +0300

csiph-web