From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Address Clauses??
Date: 17 Jun 88 04:13:03 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <124@quintus.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8806161353.AA17815@linus.MENET
In article <8806161353.AA17815@linus.MENET> dee%linus@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (David E. Emery) writes:
>Here's a very legitimate use for a dynamic address clause: C often
>returns addresses of objects (becaues C functions cannot return
>structures).
(a) That isn't true; since the days of V7 UNIX C has been able to return
records. (There are known problems with the implementation used by
some compilers, but the facility is present in the language.) struct
results and struct assignment are in the draft ANSI standard.
(b) In any case, why not simply return an access value? Are ADA access
values required to carry around more information than C pointers?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1988-06-17 4:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1988-06-16 13:53 Dynamic Address Clauses?? David E. Emery
1988-06-17 4:13 ` Richard A. O'Keefe [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1988-06-10 15:42 Jim Moody, DCA C342
1988-06-01 15:12 Mike Linnig
1988-06-02 12:39 ` Robert Firth
1988-06-10 14:38 ` stt
1988-06-15 21:19 ` Ron Guilmette
1988-06-03 6:02 ` Ron Guilmette
1988-06-03 14:52 ` markb
1988-06-06 12:33 ` David Collier-Brown
1988-06-08 18:52 ` Ron Guilmette
1988-06-10 19:22 ` Steve Hyland
1988-06-15 12:26 ` David Collier-Brown
1988-06-15 14:10 ` Burch Seymour
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox