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