🚀 go-pugleaf

> > > ``sizeof( int )'', what you are really looking at is ``sizeof CAST'',
> > > not ``sizeof( TYPE )''.
> 
> > In other words, the argument to sizeof is either "unary-expression" or
> > "( type-name )".
> 
> "( type-name )" sure looks a lot like a cast to me
> ...

Well, yes.  And the unary address operator looks like the bitwise "and"
operator.  So what?

> Is there any harm in refering to something that looks & acts like a cast,
> "a cast"?

In no way does it "act like" a cast.  A cast indicates an operation to
be performed on a value to produce another value, and that just isn't
happening here.  There aren't even any values involved.

One of the advantages of having a standard is that we can all learn to
use the same terminology, and avoid misunderstandings.  Please do that.
-- 
Mark Brader          \ "Oh, especially if it's accurate. There's nothing worse
msb@sq.com            \  than *accurate*, ill-informed, irresponsible press
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto \  speculation."  -- Lynn & Jay: "Yes, Prime Minister"

This article is in the public domain.