S
S.Tobias
[/QUOTE]Lawrence Kirby said:Nit-pick: While I perfectly understand the intention, it doesn't make
sense reading strictly. Object and incomplete types are disjoint groups
(ie. object types are not divided into complete and incomplete types
- I fell into this trap recently), although both describe objects (6.2.5#1).
IMHO it'd be better to say: "void* is an object pointer".
[snip]Don't confuse the type of a pointer and what it points to. Usually there
is a direct relation but not with pointers to incomplete types. It is
perfectly reasonable for a pointer to an incomplete type to point at an
object,
I fully agree. Jacks Klein's words could be understood as: "a (pointer
to object) type", but then I think the parentheses would be necessary.
I'm not going to argue on the precedence of word linkage in English
language, but my common/colloquial/vulgar/illiterate*) understanding
was "a pointer to (object type)". /Object type/ can never be
/incomplete type/ and v.v., and neither can be type pointer to thereof.
I made my remark for those who might be confused like I was before.
*) choose most appropriate
I hope I'm sufficiently clear.