From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b47b15fda2aeb0b2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada Standard Date: 1996/09/04 Message-ID: <50jkal$lbo@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178401770 references: <50aao3$3r88@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <50idrp$qqb@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia nntp-posting-user: ok newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Dale Stanbrough writes: >What was the original rationale for implicit dereferencing? Wasn't it in Steelman? For what it's worth, I note that the draft ANSI "Object Oriented Extensions to Pascal" insists on the same things for objects. Objects are "really" pointers to records, but object.field acts like pointer^.field. A historical reference: IMP 77 had pointers, called "names", and did exactly the same thing. You had to use special syntax to talk about the pointer; Integer Name + 1 dereferenced "Integer Name". -- Australian citizen since 14 August 1996. *Now* I can vote the xxxs out! Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.