Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site greipa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!greipa!jordan From: jordan@greipa.UUCP (Jordan K. Hubbard) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: c programming style Message-ID: <289@greipa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 01:33:54 EDT Article-I.D.: greipa.289 Posted: Tue Jul 16 01:33:54 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 05:52:38 EDT References: <11570@brl-tgr.ARPA> <935@teddy.UUCP> Reply-To: jordan@greipa.UUCP (Jordan K. Hubbard) Organization: Genstar Rental Electronics, Palo Alto, Ca. Lines: 32 Summary: In article <935@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: > >One of the points with the C i++ versus i = i = 1 issue is the one of >pointers (although some alluded to it). > > argv++; > >This will get us to the next pointer, whereas, > > argv = argv + 1; > >will NOT (unless by the happy happinstance that a pointer is exactly >the same size as a character!) Note that I have not included enough of this gentleman's article to fully outline his assertions, but in a nutshell, he claims that pointer arithmetic does not work unless the unary operators are applied. Um, I don't knoe which compiler HE'S using, but it must be severely braindamaged (someone's thesis project?). According to K&R and every C compiler I've ever used, this is simply not true. pointer = pointer + 1 works fffffffffineee.. -- Jordan K. Hubbard @ Genstar Rental Electronics. Palo Alto, CA. {pesnta, decwrl, dual, pyramid}!greipa!jordan "ack pfffft. gag. retch. barf.. ack" - Bill again.