Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: double free Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:28:33 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <57837892.8808984@news.xs4all.nl> <481f30b4-acb3-4445-92b3-c403dc3e51f7@googlegroups.com> <8760sc2aiz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87twfv26cv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2cfb31aa-11dd-422c-a5ea-07f44bee0deb@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="10262"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GwC8Qmn8RjBGmV0PU0+S4" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:M9FK7FdG0sQACwBe4EpMMEqlOwg= sha1:/ZP2JRfZVypGyw9Y0niQBquPD6c= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:90296 David Brown writes: [...] > But there are only a limited number of ways you can write code in > distinguishable ways. I feel that the use of sizeof is not dissimilar > to some uses of function calls, and thus it writing it in a similar > manner makes sense. [...] The use of sizeof is visually not dissimilar to some uses of function calls, but because sizeof is semantically very different, writing it in a distinct manner makes sense. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"