Re: const char* typedefs

[Paige DePol <lual@...>]

Sean Conner <sean@conman.org> wrote:

> It was thus said that the Great Paige DePol once stated:
>>>> I don't know what you mean by "the whole 2[pa] bit" though, can you explain?
>>> 
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>> 
>>> char *a[] = { "zero" , "one" , "two" , "three" };
>>> 
>>> int main(void)
>>> {
>>> puts( a[0] );
>>> puts( 1[a] );
>>> 
>>> putchar( 2[ 3[a] ] ); putchar('\n');
>>> putchar( 2["0123"] ); putchar('\n');
>>> 
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Valid.  And it runs without error.
>> 
>> What the heck is this voodoo magic? I have never seen this syntax before.
> 
> It comes because array syntax is "syntactic surgar."

LOL. Right, which is what I was saying about the array vs pointer stuff! :)


> So let's take a[1]...

The StackOverflow article pretty much stated the same thing. I guess I just
never really thought of the array indexing symbols as "operators" per se.

Of course, they are and that is why this little trick works... but still
it is a pretty odd syntax to be able to use. Definitely a good trick you 
can use on those who don't know about it!

~Paige

[1] I think you're addicted to footnotes! ;)