Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...

On 13/09/2024 00:46, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I merely said that LHSs of assigments fall into these categories:
>
     A = Y;         // name
     *X = Y;        // pointer
     X[i] = Y;      // index
     X.m = Y;       // member select

Yes, that incorrect explanation.

>
I dispute that. What I said is very broadly correct. But in this newgroup
you do like to nitpick.

 Someone who wants to write p->m = 42 would not consider it nitpicking if
your compiler did not accept that form of LHS.
 But I agree I was simply correcting a small error.  Why did you not just
say "yes, I forgot a few cases"?
 

So to you, it is of the greatest importance that somebody doesn't just know
about those four categories that they will be reading and writing all the
time in C code, but also know about:
>
   (int){A} = Y;

 You see why I wonder if you had a political career?  This is pure spin.
There is no technical argument here, just an attempt to mock someone
pointing out a truth.  I never even suggested that it was important,
just that it was a missing case.  And, still spinning away, you ignore
X->m which /is/ important and was also missing.

I assumed that most know that X->m is just shorthand for (*X).m, presumably created or adapted because the alternative (thanks to C's prefix dererence op) is so ungainly.
But X->m and (*X).m both do member selection; they are conceptually the same thing.
I kept X[i] and *X separate because they are conceptually different. (I expect if I'd had only *X, you would have complained that X[i] was missing.)
Note that the decription I added in the comment says only 'member select'. What would your descriptions have been for X.m and X->m?