delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: C++ problem |
Date: | Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:39:11 -0300 |
Organization: | BrunNet |
Lines: | 19 |
Message-ID: | <36166F4F.77E091FE@unb.ca> |
References: | <6udqfn$sdk$1 AT inf6serv DOT rug DOT ac DOT be> <360A8B31 DOT 53CF31E9 AT earthlink DOT net> <36101229 DOT C4659B15 AT unb DOT ca> <3613D00E DOT 6B294297 AT alcyone DOT com> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | usr1fton35.brunnet.net |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Mailer: | Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Erik Max Francis wrote: > Note that even in ANSI C, using the address-of operator on a function > has no effect; it's superfluous, but it certainly doesn't "take the > address of the variable containing the address of the function," since > there is no such thing. I did not know that '&' in front of a function name does nothing. I suspected it was like a 'void*'. Or more correctly as 'void&', which is auto-dereferenced (to a function), but you still can take the address of it. -- (\/) Endlisnis (\/) s257m AT unb DOT ca Endlisnis AT GeoCities DOT com Endlisnis AT BrunNet DOT Net
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |