On Oct 7, 2:51=A0am, r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Stefan Ram) wrote:
> Fallen Angel <milkyway8...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >1. With these variable declarations: int i, j[10], *k;
> >Which of the following are legal?
> >a. i =3D *(&(j[2]) + 1);
> >b. k =3D &(j[1]);
> >c. i =3D &(j[2]) + 1;
>
> =A0 =BBint i, j[10], *k;=AB is only /one/ declaration, consisting of
> =A0 the decl-specifier-seq =BBint=AB, the init-declarator-list
> =A0 =BBint i, j[10], *k=AB, and a semicolon =BB;=AB.
>
> =A0 A C++ program might be syntactically correct, but might have
> =A0 implementation specified or undefined behavior.
> =A0 It is not obvious what the term =BBlegal=AB refers to.
>
Are they looking if it is against the standards or something?
|
