From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <775b8d1905042909091110eae6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:09:44 +1000
From: Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] pls. HELP porting problem
In-Reply-To: <2dfbf690b45adf596c25045a39c3cfb4@vitanuova.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <775b8d19050429082543bb2234@mail.gmail.com>
	<2dfbf690b45adf596c25045a39c3cfb4@vitanuova.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 43312894-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

you'd only notice it if you wanted it to do the right thing
for ptr to ptr to fn etc.

brucee

On 4/30/05, C H Forsyth <forsyth@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> as i recall, this and several other peculiar effects
> were the consequence of the process
> by which the tree was rewritten.
> it was along these lines.  (i could of course go
> off and look at the source but is it worthwhile?)
> you might have thought it would leave the types
> alone and then when pointer-to-function appeared
> as the type of an expression to which () was applied
> it would insert a dereference.
> but instead it applied the f to &f transformation
> so *****f involved not a while loop but repeatedly
> introducing &f from the bottom of the tree and having
> adjacent *& cancel out (similarly, &*).  thus
>        ******f
>        ******&f
>        *****f
>        *****&f
>        ****f
>        ****&f
>        ***f
> etc (i might have got the wrong number of * at some points)
>=20
> little fleas indeed!
>=20
>