Re: More like *p versus p[0]

Re: More like *p versus p[0]

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96]

Trevor Longbow <xmobay@THEGRID.NET> writes:
>manipulation--and then calls this a *feature*. This isn't a feature;
>it's Janet Reno Compiler Technology.
>
    O.K. Now I'm confused. Do you mean that the compiler brazenly
    ignores the language standard in the face of flagrant violations
    because it wants to kiss the butt of the programmer who pays it?
    Or do you mean that the compiler looks for flakey programs and
    flames them to the ground in order to prove how macho it is? ;-)

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer     Voice:     561.796.8997
Pratt & Whitney GESP, M/S 731-96, P.O.B. 109600  Fax:       561.796.4669
West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600                  Internet:  CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
===============================================================================
    Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep."
    Hotspur: "Why so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when
    you do call for them?"
        -- Shakespeare, "Henry IV"
===============================================================================

Re: More like *p versus p[0]

[vo]

If you really have a problem with using *p
then you should use p[0]. Never, never 
underestimate  C 's expressiveness.
>
>Dennis Weldy wrote:
>
>
>> >Well, I was thinking of the use of * both for defining pointers and for
>> >dereferencing them.
>> 
>> I've always thought htat made sense: the declaraction matches use.
>
>N, they don't; the order is different.
>
>> Or do you object to using [] for the declaration of arrays, and for indexing
>> into the array as well? ;-)
>
>No, because there it's consistent.
>
>
>-- 
>
>                        Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>                        Senior Software SE
-- 
Huy Vo
Cabletron Systems, Inc
vo at ctron dot com
Nashua Facility

Re: More like *p versus p[0]

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

vo@ctron.com wrote:
> 
> If you really have a problem with using *p
> then you should use p[0]. Never, never
> underestimate  C 's expressiveness.

Actually, that's another thing that I consider to be a serious defect in
C.

-- 

                        Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
                        Senior Software SE

The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers:
reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com,
user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Re: More like *p versus p[0]

[Jon S Anthony]

xmobay@thegrid.net (Trevor Longbow) writes:

> Here's a defect: In a program, there are two things: addresses and
> data. Ada takes away 50% of the ballgame--freestyle address
> manipulation--and then calls this a *feature*. This isn't a feature;
> it's Janet Reno Compiler Technology.

Programs = addresses + data.  That's pretty lame at best.

1. In Ada you can fiddle "address" stuff if you want (see 'Access and
'Unchecked_Access).


> In Art, there's paint and there's paintbrushes. Nobody's going to take
> away my paintbrushes. But, hey, Trev, trust us; it's an *improvement*!

2. If you really are concerned about this sort of expressive
flexibility and freedom, why bother with something as clumsy,
inflexible, and inexpressive as C?  Just go down load CMUCL or get ACL
3.02 and _learn_ what this is really all about.


/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: More like *p versus p[0]

[Dale Stanbrough]

"99% of the defects attributed to C are actually defects in C
 programmers. Don't blame the language for the programmer's
 incompetence."


"Don't blame car's with poor brakes for accidents - that's just
driver incompetence!"

"Don't blame landmines for civilian casualties - that's just civilian
incompetence!"

"Don't blame powersaws with no shields for lost fingers - that's
just builder incompetence!".


There is a pattern here (i hope you can see it) - things that have
no protection invite errors. Is a saw any less useful if it has
a guard on it?


"Here's a defect: In a program, there are two things: addresses and
 data. Ada takes away 50% of the ballgame--freestyle address
 manipulation--and then calls this a *feature*. This isn't a feature;
 it's Janet Reno Compiler Technology."


Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Ada has well defined
features for "freestyle" address manipulation. I presume you have not
read the LRM. The difference is that you have to deliberately ask for
it, and can't accidentally stumble on it. Sounds like the power saw
analogy is rather apt, hey?


Dale