From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <775b8d19050429082543bb2234@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:25:24 +1000
From: Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
To: "rog@vitanuova.com" <rog@vitanuova.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] pls. HELP porting problem
In-Reply-To: <6ea05dc57c13d1df7359ec63990a0f8b@vitanuova.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <775b8d19050429045922ccb4f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<6ea05dc57c13d1df7359ec63990a0f8b@vitanuova.com>
Cc: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 431d88d4-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i would never have thought to put in a while loop there.
must have *fixed* some *bug*.  there is no justification
for this behaviour.  if 'f' is of type ptr to fn, then *f is of
type fn ... and it is an expression not a name.  **f should
be illegal etc etc.

brucee

On 4/30/05, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> > PCC had a particularly aggressive disregard for indirections
> > in such cases.  if 'f' was a pointer to a function then ...
> >
> > f();
> > (*f)();
> > (***************************f)();
> 
> surely this is inevitable if f ≡ &f ?