Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 23428 invoked by uid 6000); 3 Mar 1998 14:26:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 23420 invoked from network); 3 Mar 1998 14:26:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gensym-nt2.gensym.com) (192.156.185.15) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 1998 14:26:18 -0000 Received: by gensym-nt2.gensym.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id <1FZQ097K>; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:29:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: Ben Hyde To: "'new-httpd@apache.org'" Subject: RE: [PATCH] Config File Line Continuation (take 3) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:29:47 -0500 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org This was discussed at great length in december (nh9712). I thought I recalled that the MS c compiler complains about some of these constructs as a consequence of it's interest in segmented memory architectures, but that's not mentioned in the discussion. So party down. On Monday, March 02, 1998 8:05 PM, Jim Jagielski [SMTP:jim@jaguNET.com] wrote: > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > > > That is, I prefer "cp[-1]" to "*(cp - 1)". Ben, is a negative index > > guaranteed safe for C arrays? > > > > Only if it's known and guaranteed that the data refered to actually > exists. > > -- > ==================================================================== > Jim Jagielski | jaguNET Access Services > jim@jaguNET.com | http://www.jaguNET.com/ > "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!" > >