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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #16054 > unrolled thread

Can function pointers be compared for equality

Started by"V.Subramanian, India" <subramanian100in@yahoo.com>
First post2012-01-23 05:54 -0800
Last post2012-01-24 11:16 +0000
Articles 4 on this page of 24 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Can function pointers be compared for equality "V.Subramanian, India" <subramanian100in@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-23 05:54 -0800
    Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-01-23 07:00 -0800
      Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-01-23 07:46 -0800
        Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-23 20:06 +0000
          Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-23 20:42 +0000
            Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-23 16:04 -0500
              Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-24 10:24 +1300
                Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-23 16:48 -0500
                Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-24 03:04 -0800
                  Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 03:37 -0800
              Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Kleuske <kleuske@nowhere.net> - 2012-01-23 21:39 +0000
              Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 03:31 -0800
                Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-24 13:16 +0000
            Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-23 22:11 +0000
              Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-24 11:34 +1300
      Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-23 16:37 +0000
      Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-23 09:11 -0800
        Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-01-23 20:06 -0500
          Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-23 17:45 -0800
            Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-24 03:48 +0000
              Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-23 22:59 -0500
                Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-24 04:22 +0000
                  Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-24 03:07 -0800
                    Re: Can function pointers be compared for equality Kleuske <kleuske@nowhere.net> - 2012-01-24 11:16 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#16088

FromJames Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date2012-01-23 22:59 -0500
Message-ID<jflab2$je5$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#16087
On 01/23/2012 10:48 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2012-01-24, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>  ~= 
>>>
>>> ITYM !=
>>
>> Yes, thanks.
>>
>> Your correction would have been even more helpful if you'd quoted some
>> context.
> 
> Kids, it should be obvious that the context is the C programming language which
> has no ~= operator.  The irony.

No, the context was not just the C programming language in general - if
it had, Keith's comment would not have been justified. The context was a
particular sentence in a particular paragraph in a particular message
posted by Keith. The correction didn't need to quote the entire message,
but it should at least have quoted that particular sentence.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16089

FromKaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Date2012-01-24 04:22 +0000
Message-ID<20120123202144.383@kylheku.com>
In reply to#16088
On 2012-01-24, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> sentence.

Nope.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16091

FromNick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com>
Date2012-01-24 03:07 -0800
Message-ID<ce625276-f6c7-4428-961c-62e5e6f483cb@e3g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#16089
yes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16092

FromKleuske <kleuske@nowhere.net>
Date2012-01-24 11:16 +0000
Message-ID<jfm3v3$9ss$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#16091
maybe?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web