| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:56 PM, walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable, |
| 3 |
> and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have |
| 4 |
> opinions. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> if (!link->network->hostname) <this notation makes sense to me> |
| 9 |
> r = sd_dhcp_lease_get_hostname(lease, &hostname); <this doesn't> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> In this context does '&hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the- |
| 12 |
> charstring we actually need? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Nope, looks like standard C to me. If you want a function to update an |
| 17 |
argument, you need to pass a pointer to said argument. If you want to |
| 18 |
update a pointer, you need to pass a pointer to a pointer. |
Archives