Re: sizeof(type)

>> I suspect some ambiguity without the parentheses, but I fail do make
>> up one.

> The expression 'sizeof int * + 1' has two different interpretations:

> sizeof(int) * (+1)
> sizeof(int *) + 1

There's also

	sizeof (int) - 1

which is ambiguous even _with_ the parens; it means either
	(sizeof(int))-1
or
	sizeof((int)-1)

In this case, I think the ambiguity is resolved by operator precedence
(though I'm not certain, since one component - the (int) - shifts
between being an operator and being an operand between the
interpretations).  I think operator precedence even less resolves the
"* as pointer vs multiplication" question, so yours is a much better
example of why the parens around types are needed.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		[email protected]
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B