Can someone correct my syntax? I'm trying to write the ->next->next->next part but with (*next).next notation instead of ->.
Code:typedef struct mathematics { math *func[5]; // BASICALLY THESE TWO ARE THE SAME P_MATH func2[5]; int (*myOwnMath)(int, int, int, int); struct mathematics *next; } MATH_TYPE; //THE BELOW LINE pMyMT->next->next->next = pMyMT4;
If I was homeless and jobless, I would take my laptop to a wifi source and write C for fun all day. It's the same thing I enjoy now!
e.g.
Code:.c:37:11: error: expected identifier before '(' token (*pMyMT).(*next).(*next).next = pMyMT4;
If I was homeless and jobless, I would take my laptop to a wifi source and write C for fun all day. It's the same thing I enjoy now!
Code:(*(*(*pMyMT).next).next).next = pMyMT4;
You are God.Originally Posted by DRK
If I was homeless and jobless, I would take my laptop to a wifi source and write C for fun all day. It's the same thing I enjoy now!
I hope this was curiosity, and not some actual desire to write code like that.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
Salem, 99% of stuff with me is curiosity...
My actual work code is much more boring, don't worry :P
No seriously though, I often do experiments with extremely ugly syntax solely as an exercise to not just learn the ins and outs of the language, but also to train my mind to be able to understand it for when I'm handed crappy code or when I'm reverse engineering... Look up Hex-Rays IDA Pro decompiler output and you'll see what I mean :P
If I was homeless and jobless, I would take my laptop to a wifi source and write C for fun all day. It's the same thing I enjoy now!
I actually prefer this syntax over the standard ->. It shows clearly what you are trying to do and it is consistent with the rest of the language; not at all difficult to understand as so many proclaim.
IMO the only benefit -> has, is that it is more convenient to type. That in itself may be a good reason to use it, but I prefer consistency and uniformity over convenience; otherwise I'd use c++, which probably has the ugliest and most inconsistent syntax of any language. C++11 and later makes me want to puke.
Do you also use *(arr+n) instead of arr[n] for the same reason?
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
