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: 103376,1cf653444208df72
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-22 12:14:23 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!148.122.208.68!news2.oke.nextra.no!nextra.com!news1.oke.nextra.no.POSTED!not-for-mail
Sender: ohk@maestro.clustra.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada vs. cpp
References: <Xns912FE7C63AC8Dralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <slrn9rn660.uu.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Xns912FEBF1DF3EBralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <tTRu7.25751$S_6.2879078@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <9pgr68$7pu1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <slrn9rondp.tn.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <9phnic$9g5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <uadz7nza7.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <5fkv7.134136$w7.19988807@news02.optonline.net> <u8zepgmea.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <9pmpk00a53@drn.newsguy.com> <9puvdc$225$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <9pv2f20jf4@drn.newsguy.com> <3BC3DA0A.267D4302@adaworks.com>
 <3BC45801.83F0B59@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
 <QbLA7.135652$3d2.4078068@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <3BD420BE.3A0B1E6F@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ohk@clustra.com>
Message-ID: <umqofmztrle.fsf@maestro.clustra.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.143.59.98
X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:14:21 MET DST
Organization: Nextra Public Access
X-Trace: readme.online.no 1003778062 194.143.59.98
Date: 22 Oct 2001 21:14:21 +0200
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15046
Date: 2001-10-22T21:14:21+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wes Groleau <wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> writes:

> David Thompson wrote:
> > There are no implicit conversions between pointer types
> > and arithmetic types in (standard) C, nor in C++ for the
> 
> True.  But there is pointer [+*-] number, which is
> nearly the same thing.
> 
> -- 
> Wes Groleau
> http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

Not really. Pointer artihmetic in C is very closely related to array
indexing, and just as (un)safe. In fact the following always holds:

some_array[i] == *(some_array +i) == i[some_array]
Both array expressions are implicitly converted to the pointer
arihmetic expression. 

In fact, the following expression is completely legal, but perhaps
strange C:

17[some_array] = x;

-- 
Kabelsalat ist gesund.

Ole-Hj. Kristensen