Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from January 2002
At 11:34 PM 1/10/2002 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote: >In message <20020110201559$7459@gosford.compton.nu> > "Melvin Smith" <melvins@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >Well sizeof(Foo) and sizeof(*foo) are not actually the same thing >at all there because Foo is presumably a typedef for a pointer type >so sizeof(Foo) will be the size of a pointer and sizeof(*foo) will >be the size of the thing it points to. Right, I misread the code snippet in my infinite confusion. >In general it is safer to sizeof() on the variable you are working >with than on it's type, as that way the sizeof() will still work if >somebody changes the type of the variable. Well even after misreading the snippet the point I was getting at was emulating virtual pointers in C++ where the allocator might create an object regardless of what type of pointer it was using or assigning to. For example in the case where an allocator had in it a switch statement of subclasses. In the end this is more the exception than the rule and I see I was just on a tangent. :) >The type of *foo is whatever Foo as been typedefed as a pointer >to, and FooBar is a red herring. Grin, I'll read more carefully before arguing next time. ;) -MelvinThread Previous | Thread Next