Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Tydr Schnubbis, post: 2419522"] Yes, noone has disputed the 'syntactic sugar' part. Just to make it clear, there are two issues here: #1) s->x is a shorthand for (*s).x #2) early compilers used the difference between s->x and s.x to know whether to generate code using indirect or direct addressing [email]lawrence.jones@ugs.com[/email] was stating #2 as a fact. Lew Pitcher, thinking he instead was disputing #1, replied rather harshly. I think everyone can see that he misread the post he replied to. They are talking about two different, but related aspects of the C syntax. I sometimes misread posts, too. But I still haven't had the 'pleasure' of people supporting me even when I'm wrong. This discussion is getting a bit childish now, which I'll be the first to admit. ;) [/QUOTE]