In article <1201735819.744335@news1nwk>,
Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@sun.com> wrote:

>>>> I'm working on a program which has a strange operator, :>. This is
>>>> the syntax:
>>>>
>>>> ((unsigned short)( var1)):>((void __near *)( var2 ))

>>> :> is an alternate spelling of ] , one that can be used
>>> even with a keyboard that lacks the ] character.

>> But that doesn't look like a plausible explanation in this case, since
>> a ] character would make no sense.

> Plausible or not, ] is what it is.

If the code is, in fact, intended to be (post-digraph) standard C,
rather than some other C-like language, and has not been damaged in
transit (e.g. by character set conversion).

Of course, it could just be a smiley :>

-- Richard
--
:wq