Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:32:18 +0200 (MESZ) From: "Hr.Ladavac" <lada@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> To: kline@tera.com (Gary Kline) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interpretation? Message-ID: <199610160932.AA212218338@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> In-Reply-To: <199610160045.RAA19446@athena.tera.com> from "Gary Kline" at Oct 15, 96 05:45:47 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
E-mail message from Gary Kline contained: > > Can any resident C wizard interpret this parameter definition for me? > > > localtime(const time_t * const timep) a function (localtime) that takes one parameter (timep) which is a pointer to time_t. The function will not (is not allowed to) change neither the pointer (i.e. to where it points) nor the value stored at the address pointed to. > > And, is there a simpler way of saying the same thing? time_t is > a long int. Thanks for any lucid translation.... Wrong. time_t is time_t, an opaque type. I don't even think that there is a requirement that time_t be integral; as far as your program is concerned, it could just as easily be an array of char or double. I wish the people used thingy_t's more often; it makes porting a breeze. /Marino > > gary kline > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610160932.AA212218338>