🚀 go-pugleaf

msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>> > > ``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?

>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.

I had been trying to emphasize that the parentheses didn't make sizeof
a function-like operator, but didn't have the Standard handy to use the
right terminology; quite unfortunate, too, since it would have been much
clearer to simply point out that it is a prefix unary operator and post
the syntax to start with.