Python is just as good as C++ for real apps

[Grant Edwards]

In article <q1k55ukf60ebj72s0vdghrpsia3r11dfjc at 4ax.com>, Courageous wrote:
> 
>>I never said anything about p.  I've always been talking about
>>*p.
> 
> Well I've always been talking about p, because "*p" isn't an atomic
> thing, it's the identifier "p" with the operator "*". I could with
> a lot of work show you an abstract syntax tree that proves it, too. :)

I know.

All I was trying to do was to explain a way to think about
declarations to make it more intuitive why

int*  p,i,j,k;

doesn't do what people sometimes think it ought. If you are
thinking to yourself that "int*" declares a pointer to an int,
then

int* a,b,c,d;

obviously must declared 4 pointers to ints.  But it doesn't.
Therefore, thinking of "int*" as a type isn't always very
productive.

If, rather you think to yourself that "int" delcares an
integer, and we want "*p" and "i" to be integers, then we do
something like:

int *p,i;
  or 
int i,*p;

If you think like that, then it's obvious that if you want four
pointers you have to do it like this:

int *a,*b,*c,*d;

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Edwin Meese made me
                                  at               wear CORDOVANS!!
                               visi.com