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


Groups > comp.std.c > #390

Re: Types in C

From jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net>
Newsgroups comp.std.c, comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Types in C
Date 2011-06-02 22:49 +0200
Organization lccwin
Message-ID <is8t0m$9cl$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References <irbo6c$ul$1@speranza.aioe.org> <is0vfg$vqg$1@dont-email.me> <is14v9$f62$1@speranza.aioe.org> <is8snh$qa5$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


Le 02/06/11 22:44, Marcin Grzegorczyk a écrit :
> jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 30/05/11 22:42, Marcin Grzegorczyk a écrit :
>>> jacob navia wrote:
>> After reading N1439 I would tend to agree with what it says but
>> where should go the void type?
>>
>> It is void an object type?
>
> Yes, void belongs to object types, even if it might seem weird at first.
>

Well, YES...

It seems weird to me, I wonder how the readers of the tutorial will
react.

In any case I will update the tutorial to reflect the current
thinking of the committee.

> Consider how the void type is used:
> * As a function return type. Function return types are object types.
> * As a function parameter type (with special constraints). Function
> parameter types are object types, too.
> * As a pointed-to type. There are pointers to object types and pointers
> to function types; `void*` is compatible only with the former.
>
> [snip]
>> The problem is that N1429 is difficult to read because it only
>> refers to what should be patched and doesn't display the patched
>> text.
>
> I brought N1429 only for the rationale. (The latest C1X draft is N1569 /
> N1570 (without / with diff marks, respectively).)

OK. Thanks.

jacob

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


Thread

Types in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-05-22 21:29 +0200
  Re: Types in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-22 12:48 -0700
  Re: Types in C Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-05-30 22:42 +0200
    Re: Types in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 17:45 -0500
      Re: Types in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 08:47 -0700
        Re: Types in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 13:54 -0400
      Re: Types in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 22:38 -0700
        Re: Types in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 07:22 -0500
          Re: Types in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-01 12:13 -0700
    Re: Types in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-05-31 00:16 +0200
      Re: Types in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 18:30 -0500
        Re: Types in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 22:43 -0700
          Re: Types in C Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 07:41 -0500
            Re: Types in C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-01 12:23 -0700
      Re: Types in C Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-06-02 22:44 +0200
        Re: Types in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-02 22:49 +0200
          Re: Types in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 15:26 -0700

csiph-web