Python is just as good as C++ for real apps
Grant Edwards
grante at visi.com
Fri Jan 25 19:50:35 EST 2002
In article <8tu35uk9uvgsvs79lekrfgvm5vj6gbbevn at 4ax.com>, Courageous wrote:
>
>>Think of it as meaning that *p is of type int rathing than p is
>>of type int*, and then it makes a bit more sense.
>
> Only in that context. In other contexts, thinking of it that
> way is nonsensical. For example, when you do ++, tell me how much
> is added to it again?
I'm not sure what the referrent of "it" is, but assuming it's
*p, then incrementing it adds one to it and sizeof *p is the
same as sizeof (int) -- which is 4 on all of my boxes. IOW, *p
behaves like any other int.
> How about sizeof?. int* doesn't _behave_
> like an int. It behaves like a pointer, which so happens can be
> safely and without-casting be evaluated to an int.
Eh? (*p) behaves like an int:
int i; // means "i" is an int
int *p; // means that "*p" is an int
> *shrug*
>
> It's not like it's a big deal, really.
No, but I'm confused about why you say thinking about *p as an
int is nonsensical...
> And I understand that there
> was a requirement for backward comparability with C.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! My vaseline is
at RUNNING...
visi.com
More information about the Python-list
mailing list