From: jstacey AT plato DOT wadham DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (J-P)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Weird : Segmentation fault on fwrite :(
Date: 29 Apr 2000 15:10:33 +0100
Organization: Wadham College Oxford
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <8eeqgp$bvp$1@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk>
References: <956963090 DOT 719428 AT romulus DOT infonie DOT fr> <957001855 DOT 943830 AT romulus DOT infonie DOT fr> <8eef1d$ai7$1 AT plato DOT wadham DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <390adf87 DOT 104978688 AT news DOT freeserve DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk
X-Trace: news.ox.ac.uk 957017433 15938 163.1.164.74 (29 Apr 2000 14:10:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster AT ox DOT ac DOT uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Apr 2000 14:10:33 GMT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

In article <390adf87 DOT 104978688 AT news DOT freeserve DOT net>,
Steamer <dontmailme AT iname DOT com> wrote:
>Here, arrayname is an array, and will be implicitly converted to a
>pointer to (its first) char in most contexts.

This is actually quite grim: K&R had convinced me something saner was
going on. I suppose it is self-consistent, but having foo effectively
equivalent to &foo in any context makes my flesh creep. Also, the fact
that foo[5] is equivalent to 5[foo] has just had me entertaining thoughts
of the construct &5, which I have yet to rationalize.

J-P
-- 
ghosts! // lake phonebooth // contact lens origami // ceramic teeth