27 Apr
2020
27 Apr
'20
4:38 a.m.
Tom Cargill makes (made) frequent use of this construction in 'pi'
(process inspector, first in Eight Edition), e.g.,
asm.c: _asm->core->process()->openmemory(addr);
frame.c: return core->process()->frame(level-1)->regloc((int)v->range.lo,
v->type.size_of());
phrase.c: frame->symtab()->core()->process()->openmemory(expr->val.lng);
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 6:11 AM Derek Fawcus <
dfawcus+lists-tuhs(a)employees.org> 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?
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