From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-26 23:57:29
Martin Bonner wrote:
>
> What Neal wrote is perfectly legal. See 5.7 para 4 in the standard:
> "For the purposes of these operators [+ and -], a pointer to a nonarray
> object behaves the same as a pointer to the first element of an array of
> length one with the type of the object as its element type."
>
I knew I must have missed something. Thanks for the pointer.
crawling-under-a-rock-ly yours
Thomas
-- Thomas Witt witt_at_[hidden]