Yes, that's the issue, which arose in C++ programs. The question at the
time was whether C would allow the same syntax.

Nothing to do with me.

-rob


On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:58 AM Nemo Nusquam <cym224@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04/26/20 16:10, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 08:37:04PM +0100, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> >> No, I think he means something like:
> >>
> >>     (*((*((*((*f)()->g))()->h))()->i))()
> >>
> >> but I can't recall the relative priority of '*' and '->' in
> >> the above, so I may have added unnecessary parens.
> > Actually trying it, while the above does the right thing,
> > I can also get the following to compile with a modern compiler
> >
> >      (*(*(*(*f)()->g)()->h)()->i)();
> >
> > So maybe that was the answer?
>
> K&R 1, Sect. 6.2. (with no mention of Rob Pike's influence).
>
> N.
>
> >
> > I guess I'd have to question why someone would wish to write
> > such a construct, as error handling seems awkward.  Even in
> > the modern form.
> >
> > DF
>
>