Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!apple!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Language Tenets
Message-ID: <5436@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 2 Aug 89 13:57:30 GMT
References: <57125@linus.UUCP> <1989Jun24.230056.27774@utzoo.uucp> <10595@riks.csl.sony.JUNET>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 28

In article <10595@riks.csl.sony.JUNET>, diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman Diamond) writes:
> In article <5098@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >I like it, thought I think the following syntax is a bit more consistant:

> >     execv("/bin/sh", (char *){"sh", "-c", command});

> Maybe execv("/bin/sh", (char *) &{"sh", "-c", command});

I don't know. Possibly, but then:

	execv("/bin/sh", &my_array);

Would be more consistent too. Should this construct be seen as an array
or as a structure? If you're using it as an array, then it shouldn't need
an address operator, but if you're doing:

	ioctl(fd, TIOCSETC, (struct termio *)&{...});

then it should...

> might be more consistEnt?

I have this problem with spelling "dependent" too.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now
Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.   `-_-' |  writing is the sentence
Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  |  you are now reading"