peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/13/90)
> This last sentence bothers me. It would be quite simple to implement > a C operator such as "(typeof) x" that returns some representation of > the type of the variable x. I think this would be a worthwhile innovation, and one that's as easy to implement as sizeof. It wouldn't return a value, but would be used anywhere a type could be used. I realise this isn't quite what's meant here. An operator to return some indication of the type of an object would be useful, but I'm not sure what it'd return. A small integer? A structure? A pointer to a structure? The "type" of a C object can be very complex... what would it return for: struct { union uabc { struct { int a; int b; } ab; long c; } abc; union uabc *d; struct stat buf; } x; But a typeof operator... wouldn't that be something... #define SWAP(a,b) {typeof a tmp; tmp=a; a=b; b=tmp} -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
robison@m.cs.uiuc.edu (01/17/90)
Since when is 'typeof' new? The Gnu C compiler already has it. Arch D. Robison University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign UUCP: {pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!robison Internet: robison@CS.UIUC.EDU