Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26829 comp.lang.misc:4421
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cmh117
From: CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: C strongly typed?
Message-ID: <90071.030339CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 12 Mar 90 08:03:39 GMT
References: <90070.034113CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> <14318@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 17


In article <14318@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka) says:
>
>Despite the syntax, 'void *' has no semantic connection to 'void'
>at all as far as I can see.  Indeed, they are almost opposites:
>"anything" vs. "nothing." Apparently, C compiler writers simply
>decided to apply some new semantics to whatever unused syntax was
>lying around.

As they did, but less effectively, with the keyword "static".


Virtually,
- Charles Martin Hannum II       "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within."
    (That's Charles to you!)     "To life immortal!"
  cmh117@psuvm.{bitnet,psu.edu}  "No noozzzz izzz netzzzsnoozzzzz..."
  c9h@psuecl.{bitnet,psu.edu}    "Mem'ry, all alone in the moonlight ..."