Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu!minich
From: minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: THINK C Suggestions
Message-ID: <1990Oct10.054054.25762@d.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 10 Oct 90 05:40:54 GMT
References: <1990Oct9.171921.29529@mtcchi.uucp>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Lines: 44

palmer@nntp-server.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes:
Here's a suggestion for the next 'Think C'.  Allow the operator '->>' to
dereference handles, just as '->' dereferences pointers.

by fjo@mtcchi.uucp (2667-Frank Owen(ZG90210)0000):

|   You should be able to use standard C syntax just as easily for this.
| If 'p' is a pointer to a structure that has a member 'x', then
| 'p->x' references the member. If 'h' is a handle to the structure, 
| then '(*h)->x' references the member. 
| 
| What's so hard about this? I'd rather stick with standard syntax whenever
| possible.

Your argument (except for supporting a standard) is completely bunk. If
nothing is so hard about

	(*p)->x

then why not

	(*p).x   instead of p->x

??? What's so hard about THIS? Personally, I tend to end up with a ton a
parenthesis and adding a couple more often makes it harder to understand
but that's C for you. Make's me want to go back to Pascal at times (no
often, though)

	(*object_ptr)->object_field
	(*((Handle *)(&(myPtr))))->field

is equivalent to

	object_ptr^^.object_field
	Handle(@myPtr)^^field

Of course the second part is rather dumb, but it demonstates the point.
Now add a couple more typecasts in there and try your luck at figuring
out you forgot a dereference and the C compiler didn't mind a bit. :-)
-- 
|_    /| | Robert Minich            |
|\'o.O'  | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to 
|=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu  | his guns -- whether they are 
|   U    | - Ackphtth               | loaded or not.