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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

["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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]