standards

I was playing around with gcc and tried the following bit of code: int A = 42; int *B = &A; int *C = &*B; And C == &A , as expected. But when I try: int *B = NULL; int *C = &*B; Turns out C == NULL , and no segfault. So &*B is not actually dereferencing B before taking its address. My guess is that the preprocessor is stripping out instances of &* and *& before they even get to the compiler since they negate each other, but I can't find any documentation to verify whether this is standard C or compiler-specific. Is the preprocessor stripping out &* and *& , and can I expect this behavior from

When developing my interfaces (contracts) and the concrete implementations of them, both the data models as well as repositories, I find myself questioning where the validation logic should go. Part of me (which tends to win out) says that the class itself should be responsible for it's own validation (string max length, date buffers, etc), but the other part of me says this should be moved out to the repository because depending upon the persistence store, these values could change based on your repository implementation. I think there is some validation that MUST be done at the class level

In my previous question , the discussion seems to imply that there might be a defect in the C standard, further implied by the top answerer's last sentence: The authors of the standard merely neglected to say so. I'm aware that C++ has an online website where you can search for defect reports, i.e. here is my search for null pointer constant , but is there something similar for the C standard? Shafik Yaghmour Keeping up with the C standards process is not as convenient as keeping up with the C++ process but by starting from the WG14 page we can find the Defect report summary for C11 linked at

The ISO C Standard (ISO/IEC 9899) and the ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882) are not published online; instead, one must purchase the PDF for each of those standards. I am wondering what the rationale is behind this... is it not detrimental to both the C and C++ programming languages that the authoritative specification for these languages is not made freely available and searchable online? Doesn't this encourage the use of possibly inaccurate, non-authoritative sources for information regarding these languages? While I understand that much time and effort has gone into developing the C and C++

#include <type_traits> #define FORWARD(arg)\ std::forward<decltype(arg)>(arg) template<typename... Args> constexpr bool AndL(Args&&... args) { return (... && FORWARD(args)); } template<typename... Args> constexpr bool AndR(Args&&... args) { return (FORWARD(args) && ...); } int main() { bool* pb = nullptr; false && (*pb = true); // ok at runtime. AndL(false, (*pb = true)); // error at runtime! AndR(false, (*pb = true)); // error at runtime! } The traditional && operator supports short-circuit evaluation , so false && (*pb = true) will be ok at runtime, but the following two cases are not. How

Currently, I'm using <hr align="left" /> on my HTML5 page, but I've read that the align property was deprecated in XHTML 4.01 and supposedly removed from HTML5. I'd like to be using CSS rather than an inline attribute like this, but when I tried hr{align: left; max-width: 800px;} or hr{text-align: left;} or hr{left: 0;} or hr{float: left;} , it just showed up in the center. So what should I use instead of the inline attribute above? Stephen You're trying to use something in a way that (as Eliezer Bernart mentions.. and apparently that comment with the link to the MDN doc disappeared) no longer