lol wut

What the hell does '->' do? I see it in C and C++ all the time and it confuses the shit out of me.

It is used to create lambda functions. For example instead of saying:

bar xs = map foo xs
    where foo = ...
You can use a lambda function like this:

bar xs = map (\x -> ...) xs

What the fuck are you doing reading source code if you clearly have no idea how to program? '->' is simple class/pointer shit.

Also,

POLYMORPHISM. Do you use if fucker?!

>>3
That's like asking someone why they're reading books to learn English.

I R READ SRC CODE CUZ I LERN 2 PROGRM LULZ.

Also, >>4 doesn't actually know what it is, he just read a general description of it's use, and likes to wave his (imaginary) e-p33n around to make the other anonymi think he's smart. Cause if it's so simple, you could explain it, or link me to something that does explain it.

>>2
I appreciate it, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>5
(\a1 a2 ... -> ...) ... == let f a1 a2 ... = ... in f ...

hope that helps!

>>5
Hey, dumb shit. I hate to break it to you, but >>2 isn't helpful at all because that's not C or C++. I can see you're doing a great job learning those languages.

Also, simply searching 'C++ and polymorphism' on google would lead you to many results explaining this common and simple programming technique. But before you do that, you need to learn the basics and not act like a dumbass. If you don't know what a 'class' or OOP is, you need to go back to your textbook and start reading, because you're not even to novice level yet. Essentially, UR DOING IT WRONG. You can't learn a language by only reading source code. Go buy a good book and READ IT, instead of coming here like some dumb nub thinking he's entitled to full length explanations to every one of his dumb ass questions.

>>You can't learn a language by only reading source code.

Only true for unreadable languages like C, C++, Java, etc.

the -> operator is used to access members and methods of pointers to aggregate types (structs/classes)

>>9
A simple, concise answer to a simple, concise question? IN MY /PROG/? It's less likely than you think. Thanks.

>>7
I lol'd. I think you should spend less time flaming people about a subject you know very little about, and spend more time fapping. Essentially, LURK MOAR.

>>6
Again, I appreciate it. Keep up the good work!

READ K&R BITCH

p->member is like (*p).member

>>11
Since pointers themselves don't have members, why couldn't they have just made p.member be equivalent to (*p).member?

Dereference operator FTW!

>>12
Dot operator is for and only for finding members of the current variable. It matches the design of everything else in C: keeping the language clean.

Do we really suffer for it? I see an expression like p->member and I can immediately tell that p is a pointer, without fishing out the declaration.

>>10
Not knowing one of the core operators of the C language, I don't think you're entitled to tell anybody to lurk more, no matter how much of a jerk they are to you.

The -> operator is like "no" in Japanese, except that the left side is a pointer rather than the "outer" thing.

>>14
To understand what x++ does you'd have to know the type of x; I really don't see why the dot operator would have to be any different.

You 'suffer' because it's harder to type, and you're forced to make a completely unnecessary distinction. Ocaml has different operators for integer and floating point arithmetic, but C doesn't need that since it has explicit typing. Same goes for '.' vs '->'.

If the choice for separate operators was really made to 'match the design of everything else' in the language, they should at least also have split the int/float division operator (like '/' and 'div' in Pascal).

-> :

This operator is to access to the members/methods of a pointer to  a struct/class.

So :

#include <stdio.h>

typedef struct Foo
{
int a;
int b;
int c;
}Foo;

int main(int argc,char *argv[])
{
Foo *pointer = malloc(sizeof(Foo));
pointer->a = 40;
printf("%ld\n",pointer->a);
free(pointer);
Foo NotAPointer;
NotAPointer.a = 30;
printf("%ld\n",NotAPointer.a);
return 0;
}


Here you go.

int main (void) {
    struct {int whut} *d;
    int b;

    return d->whut<-b;
}

>>12
POINTERS TO STRUCTURES IDIOT, POINTERS TO STRUCTURES

>>10
| A simple, concise answer to a simple, concise question? IN MY /PROG/?

There's much more to the operator than simply dereferencing a pointer to a structure or class. It's used in polymorphism which is a very basic, but powerful technique that could not be adequately explained on /prog/. Once again, stop asking stupid questions and GO READ A BOOK.

| I think you should spend less time flaming people about a subject you know very little about

I flamed you because you're an idiot that simply refuses to research anything on his own. Not only should you have already known this, because it's very basic, but I did give you an answer. I told you it had to do with polymorphism, but instead of going and researching it you flamed ME because I didn't spend 30 minutes typing some long ass explanation that you could have simply read out of any C++ programming book, since you're a dumb nub that flatly refuses to look up answers yourself.

| >>6
| Again, I appreciate it. Keep up the good work!

Once again, that's not C or C++ dumb ass.

>>18
OH GOD WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT DO?

>>21
its invalid, you dumb fuck

>>22
Well how the fuck am I supposed to know that?

>>23
LOL

>>22
It's only invalid because it's missing a semicolon after int whut, dipshit.  Also, it's just checking whut < (-b).

>>25
enjoy ur segfaults

return d->whut < -b;

return(~-d->whut--<<~b--);
kthx

>>28
let's make it trigraphcore

return(??--d->whut--??!??-!b--);

return(-~d->whut--|~b?~!d->whut:!++b?d->whut^~!b:!b&~(*d).whut);
h0h0

lol wut?

>>31
Posts >>27-30 are pussy shit. If you can't understand them, you need to kill yourself.

>>32
LOL K

FGGFDS

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy