[lazzlazzlazz]

Who the hell doesn't think of `sizeof` as a function?

[noselasd]

It's an unary operator, with 2 forms:

   sizeof(type)

or

  sizeof expression

but e.g. unlike a function, it doesn't evaluate the expression.

    sizeof(my_function()) doesn't call my_function.

    sizeof(a = 12) doesn't assign 12 to a.

[lazzlazzlazz]

That's a language design choice - not a conceptual argument.

[Retr0spectrum]

So is "sizeof(a = 12)" equivalent to just "sizeof(a)"?

[hebdo]

Well, `a` could overload the "=" operator, in which case you would get `sizeof(a.operator=(12))`. But as far as pure C goes I believe you are right.

Edit: Via the C99 spec (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf).

The sizeof operator yields the size (in bytes) of its operand, which may be an expression or the parenthesized name of a type. The size is determined from the type of the operand. The result is an integer. If the type of the operand is a variable length array type, the operand is evaluated; otherwise, the operand is not evaluated and the result is an integer constant.

The type of an assignment expression is the type of the left operand unless the left operand has qualified type, in which case it is the unqualified version of the type of the left operand.

So it is indeed the case that `sizeof(a = 12)` is equivalent to `sizeof(a)` in the C world.

[to3m]

An interesting result of this (I suppose...) is that if a macro expands an argument twice, and one of those times is an operand for sizeof, you don't need to mention the double expansion in the documentation.

[Luc]

I learned C from 'Kernighan & Ritchie', where it's never referred to as a function but as a compile-time operator. I've never thought of it as a function.

[_lce0]

Well it's an operator, and algebra said all them are just functions... Just like `+` is a function

Anyways not all those writing code have CS background

[weland]

Except algebra said that about algebraic functions and operators.

I know a CS major who insisted in pointing out the same thing. He was extremely surprised when dragons hatched from his eggs instead of the chickens he expected. It was a really heated event. He barely escaped -- and then ranted for several weeks how they were really just eggs and couldn't explain what happened.

[masklinn]

Except sizeof is a compile-time operation, not runtime. If sizeof were a function,

    int *foo = malloc(sizeof(*foo));

would make no sense.

[barrkel]

Compile-time functions are a thing. Not in C, but in other languages, including C++.

This all comes down to what you think "function" means. If you're living in a C bubble, of course sizeof isn't a function. If you have a wider mapping (!) for the word, then it is a kind of function.

[mcguire]

If you think everything called a "function", in every context, is the same thing, you are going to have a very bad day.

[userbinator]

In C99, sizeof is compile-time only if VLAs are not involved.

In C89, sizeof is always compile-time.

[rdc12]

So in practice it works more like a C Macro then a C function?

Edit, except it doesn't treat arguments the same, so no.

[cygx]

It's neither:

sizeof belongs in its own category of unary compile-time(-ish) operators, whose only other member is _Alignof.

If you're so inclined, you might add _Generic and _Pragma to that mix as well, but they aren't really a close fit.