From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-16 13:40:27 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!east1.newsfeed.sprint-canada.net!news.storm.ca!nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3B7C2FBA.312EA83A@home.com>
From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of     
 service attack.
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
 <3b690498.1111845720@news.worldonline.nl> <9kbu15$9bj@augusta.math.psu.edu>
 <made-on-a-macintosh-969204-20460@usenet.l1t.lt>
 <9kbvsr$a02@augusta.math.psu.edu> <3B69DB35.4412459E@home.com>
 <q22nk9.r1p.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B6F312F.DA4E178E@home.com>
 <23lok9.ioi.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B70AB15.35845A98@home.com>
 <qrdsk9.env.ln@10.0.0.2> <3B721FF5.B7D854F6@home.com>
 <HGIe7.17812$1p1.1427858@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <3B7BC847.61D7EF55@home.com> <3B7BCEC4.202A3FA@cfmu.eurocontrol.int>
 <3B7C0397.3AD029C6@home.com> <AMTe7.71383$B37.1629137@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:40:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:40:26 MDT
Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc.
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12010 comp.lang.c:74819
 comp.lang.c++:83213
Date: 2001-08-16T20:40:26+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In article <3B7C0397.3AD029C6@home.com>, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> >BTW, not to start a flame war here, but the brackets in
> >'sizeof ("ab")' are legal, but unnecessary
> >and offensive, just like 'return (value);' is offensive ;-)
> 
> The parentheses *are* mandatory when the operand is a type expression:
> 
>         sizeof (char *);

But in the context of the discussion(!) sizeof "ab" does _not_
require brackets. The rest is old news.

> The analogy to the return statement is irrelevant, because return is a
> keyword which introduces a jump statement. It is not an operator. So
> there is no question about the relative precedence of return and any
> constituent of the expression being returned. Parentheses are *never*
> necessary in a return statement.

Quite correct. Parenthesis are *never* required, but yet, people insist
on putting those pesky things there ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg