|
Home > Archive > Unix Programming > September 2004 > int X, & Y = X ; Y = 5 ;
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
int X, & Y = X ; Y = 5 ;
|
|
| Jeff Relf 2004-09-22, 9:22 pm |
| Hi Mike Cox,
comp.unix.programmer ?
Why seattle.general ?
After this C++ code:
int X, & Y = X ; Y = 5 ;
X now has 5 in it... Because Y was bound to X.
Y refers to X, and vice versa.
| |
| General Protection Fault 2004-09-22, 9:22 pm |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 21 Sep 2004 17:49:47 GMT, Jeff Relf wrote:
> Hi Mike Cox,
>
> comp.unix.programmer ?
>
> Why seattle.general ?
>
> After this C++ code:
>
> int X, & Y = X ; Y = 5 ;
>
> X now has 5 in it... Because Y was bound to X.
No, it's not "binding."
> Y refers to X, and vice versa.
No, not vice versa. Y refers to X, but X is just a stupid int.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:55PM up 10 days, 19:18, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
|
|
|
|
|