Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On Feb 9, 9:43 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> >>> q.e.d. what?
>
> >> 1. const T /= T
> >> 2. not (const T <: T)
>
> > That's of course very interesting, but does not relate to the example
> > that we are discussing.
>
> It does, because const T is the type of the actual parameter and T is the
> type of the formal parameter.

No, because formal and actual are distinct objects in C. They are not
related (they are assigned to each other, but this is very weak
relationship), so there is no type substitution. And therefore there
is no contract that might be broken.

> > No. According to the C standard (6.5.2.2/4) this is *assignment*.
>
> Making local copies requires copy constructor. That's for sure.

For sure the word "constructor" does not appear in the C standard, not
even once, so I would not bet my money on this requirement.

> But this is
> unrelated to the substitution, which is always there when you call a
> subprogram with parameters and/or results.

In C you don't call a subprogram with parameters, they are assigned -
you seem to try to apply the Ada terminology to C and you go nowhere
with this.

> Note that the assignment's implied profile is:
>
>    procedure ":=" (Left : in out Integer; Right : Integer);
>
> When J is substituted for Right there is no problem because the anonymous
> types of "constant T" and "in T" are same in Ada.

Cool. So what's the implied profile of the copy constructor (which is
not even mentioned in the C standard) for int? How is it supposed to
work? Oops.

Stop applying Ada terminology to C, because this leads you to wrong
conclusions.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com