Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?

From	Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
Date	2024-08-17 07:41 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<86jzgfgqki.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <v9ktep$v5sk$1@dont-email.me> <87y14xsvnh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v9l95b$10ogv$1@dont-email.me> <87sev5s51s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v9nn5q$1f3op$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 16/08/2024 01:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 15/08/2024 15:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/08/2024 09:43, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                            C call-by-value         call-by-reference
>>>>>>                            ===============         =================
>>>>>>      at call:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        (array argument)    F(A)                    H(A)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        (pointer argument)  F(p)                    (disallowed)
>>>>>
>>>>> My posts were about passing *arrays* and the fact that C's pass-by-value
>>>>> was remarkably similar to pass-by-reference.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why, presumably, you didn't show the differences.  Your
>>>> post was all polemic not part of a collegiate discussion of the
>>>> similarities and differences.
>>>>
>>>>> However your entry for pointers is not correct:
>>>>
>>>> No, the entry is correct.  H(p) would be (is?) disallowed when H's
>>>> parameter is a reference to an array.
>>>
>>> Sorry, what language does the right-hand column pertain to? /Any/ language
>>> that has call-by-reference, or Tim's hypthetical language?
>>
>> Tim said that case was "disallowed".  You call that an error on his
>> part.  What language did you have in mind that permits such a gross
>> warping of types?  I would describe /any/ language that allowed it as
>> having a design error.
>
> You or he would have to go into more detail, such as an actual
> example, to demonstrate whatever it is that you think is wrong about
> passing a pointer argument by-reference.
>
> I assume here that the language in the right column is not C.
>
>>> Or any that could be used to prove him right?
>>>
>>> In general there is no reason, in a language with true call-by-reference,
>>> why any parameter type T (which has the form U*, a pointer to anything),
>>> cannot be passed by reference.  It doesn't matter whether U is an array
>>> type or not.
>>
>> I can't unravel this.  Take, as a concrete example, C++.  You can't pass
>> a pointer to function that takes an array passed by reference.  You can,
>> of course, pass a pointer by reference, but that is neither here nor
>> there.
>
> OK.  So why do you agree with this:
>
>>>>>>                            C call-by-value         call-by-reference
>>>>>>                            ===============         =================
>>>>>>        (pointer argument)  F(p)                    (disallowed)
>
> What is 'pointer argument' here?

Try thinking harder.  Everyone else understood.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 02:01 -0700
  Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:39 -0500
    Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:35 +0200
    Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-13 14:43 -0700
    Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 12:38 +0100
      Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-17 16:34 +0300
        Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-17 16:56 +0100
          Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 01:43 -0700
            Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 13:48 +0100
              Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-15 15:33 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 17:08 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 01:08 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-16 12:10 +0300
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 02:18 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-16 12:38 +0300
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:28 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 11:40 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 11:17 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 11:42 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-16 11:00 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 16:31 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 00:54 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 18:03 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 09:26 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-19 12:22 +0300
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 14:14 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-19 21:18 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 10:56 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-17 12:26 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-17 11:38 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 15:19 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-17 07:41 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-17 18:07 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-17 18:22 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-18 12:35 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 01:01 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-19 01:57 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-19 02:30 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-19 12:29 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-08-20 00:33 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-20 12:42 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 10:04 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:45 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-08-16 16:51 +0200
              Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-15 14:36 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-15 23:22 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-08-15 23:29 +0000
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 01:46 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 18:21 -0700
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-08-16 03:37 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-08-16 12:14 +0100
              Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-08-15 14:52 -0700
      Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-17 19:07 +0200
      Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 12:53 -0500
        Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 09:46 +0200
          Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 05:05 -0500
            Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 14:41 +0200
              Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-18 14:00 +0100
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-18 18:01 +0200
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 14:25 -0500
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-18 22:23 +0000
                Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 12:40 -0500
  Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-13 13:35 +0100
    Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-17 01:09 -0700

csiph-web