i still don't understand it. if you want a pointer of size 1 what keeps you from using a generic char or uint8 pointer?
On 5/16/22, adr <a...@sdf.org> wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2022, Charles Forsyth wrote: >> it's void* because that can be assigned between other pointer types >> without a cast.x = malloc(sizeof(*x)); >> instead of x = (T*)malloc(sizeof(*x)); which just adds clutter. >> Similarly it's just free(x) instead of free((void*)x); (or free((uchar*)x) >> as I understand your >> suggestion). > > The idea I wanted to share, more as a light chat than as a suggestion > is that I would find more useful to have a generic pointer (with > the property you have just described) with size (the object pointed > to) of 1. I don't expect anyone to be happy about substituting > void*. GNU (and I think clang followed suit) just made the size of > void* 1. I don't really like this because it breaks the concept of > void, that's the reason I talk about char* and uint8*. But I think > I'm repeating my self a lot, so I will silently retreat back through > the hedge. > > Regards, > adr. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tecaea3b9ec8e7066-M390b72c2b74c880b53607f48 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
