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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-08 17:15:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? Message-ID: References: <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fjgha$blf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <35mqhtkdfma2rggv1htcaq6vfn2ihs67a1@4ax.com> <9fli1b$4aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B20E1B0.3EC7FEBB@dresdner-bank.com> <7q32itc596euq7tgic3qgd4qpov9bocaj5@4ax.com> Organization: LJK Software Date: 8 Jun 2001 20:15:00 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 992045702 216.44.122.34 (Sat, 09 Jun 2001 00:15:02 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 00:15:02 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8471 comp.lang.awk:2940 comp.lang.clarion:21510 comp.lang.java.programmer:74928 comp.lang.pl1:940 comp.lang.vrml:3680 Date: 2001-06-08T20:15:00-05:00 List-Id: In article <7q32itc596euq7tgic3qgd4qpov9bocaj5@4ax.com>, Pete Thompson writes: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:31:12 +0200, James Kanze > wrote: > >>Pete Thompson wrote: >> >> [...] >>> Well, sure. Pointer arithmetic in C/C++ is inherently unsafe and >>> encourages obfuscation. However, it also promotes flexibility. >> >>Just curious, but what can you do with pointer arithmetic in C/C++ >>that you couldn't do otherwise, in a cleaner fashion? > > Well... I'm not saying that there's anything that would be impossible to do > without pointer arithmetics -- there's always another way to do things, after > all. I'm just saying that there are cases where using pointer arithmetics are > simply faster. I find it convenient for when dealing with strings/substrings, > images, special effects, filters, masks, reading the system memory, etc. One > might argue that arrays are an abstract form of pointer arithmetics. Others would argue that arrays are a safe paradigm for doing what is done with pointer arithmetic.