Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: pointer question
Message-ID: <3300@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 17:18:29 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.3300
Posted: Thu Apr  5 17:18:29 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 03:17:41 EST
References: <7624@mgweed.UUCP>, <937@inuxc.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 17

What you say is true but your example (p = p + 4) may be confusing.
If p is declared as a pointer to a 4-byte something, then
	++p;
and
	p = p + 1;
are equivalent.
	p = p + 4;
on the other hand makes the pointer point to the 4th something after
what it used to point to.  I think you meant using things like int p's:
	int	p;
	p = p + 4;
	do something with *(something *)p;
which is a (not recommended!) way to use an int as a pointer to
something.  If p is properly declared, then you would have had to
write your example in a way that makes the shenanigans obvious:
	something	*p;	/* 4 bytes per something */
	p = (something *)((int)p + 4);