
27 May
2006
27 May
'06
3:57 a.m.
Martin Bonner wrote:
What Neal wrote is perfectly legal. See 5.7 para 4 in the standard: "For the purposes of these operators [+ and -], a pointer to a nonarray object behaves the same as a pointer to the first element of an array of length one with the type of the object as its element type."
I knew I must have missed something. Thanks for the pointer. crawling-under-a-rock-ly yours Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org