Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/09/12/20:16:12
Myknees wrote:
> Consequentially, there is not so much of a direct correspondence in C++ between
> source code and machine operations. You can say *p++, and it might not have
> _anything_ to do with a pointer or incrementation. (e.g. if p is an iterator
> that's not implemented as a pointer and the postfix ++ operator has been
> defined to do something else.)
I don't see that as a bad thing. I think it makes the language more
flexible.
--
(\/) Endlisnis (\/)
s257m AT unb DOT ca
Endlisnis AT GeoCities DOT com
Endlis AT nbnet DOT nb DOT ca
GeoCities.com
Endlis AT nbnet DOT nb DOT ca
- Raw text -