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

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
Date	Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:36:00 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	39
Message-ID	<86msldo4e7.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	<v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me> <87r0c1nzjj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v6m716$1urj4$1@dont-email.me> <87ikxconq4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v6n8iu$24af0$1@dont-email.me> <20240711115418.00001cdf@yahoo.com> <v6oamt$2d8nn$1@dont-email.me> <v6oct4$2djgq$2@dont-email.me> <v6of96$2ekb0$1@dont-email.me> <v6ovfc$2hcpf$1@dont-email.me> <v6p4hf$2icph$1@dont-email.me> <v6qgpu$2t6p7$3@dont-email.me> <v6r33m$30grj$1@dont-email.me> <20240712154252.00005c2f@yahoo.com> <86o7717jj1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v6ti10$3gru4$1@dont-email.me> <v78af7$1qkuf$1@dont-email.me> <20240717163457.000067bb@yahoo.com> <v78piu$1su4u$1@dont-email.me> <86a5hep45h.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v9ktep$v5sk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date	Thu, 15 Aug 2024 23:36:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info	dont-email.me; posting-host="ea18f1ad42e487cc51a7cbceb5bfd3a2"; logging-data="1168008"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+r342aGpfkRQK6yJxGVykBkwuuNILM06I="
User-Agent	Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:6ujThQuHqUiWKrl0IXbtSRLaxmc= sha1:FDxT55NpfS1ZbWO5mwIPrquaWmg=
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.c:387588

Show key headers only | View raw

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 15/08/2024 09:43, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>> [on comparing array arguments in C with call-by-reference]
>>
>>> [...] the differences [between C rules and true call-by-reference]
>>> can be summarised here;  [...]
>>>
>>>                                   Call     Array access in callee
>>>
>>>      C call-by-value              F(A)     A[i]
>>>
>>>      true call-by-reference       H(A)     A[i]
>>>
>>> What the user has to write is what's important, and here it is clear
>>> that they write the same thing [in the two cases shown].
>>
>> The comparison above is misleading because it is incomplete.
>> Let's compare the two modes more fully:
>>
>>
>>                          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.

I see.  So your point is, if we ignore all the ways that the two
modes are different then they are exactly the same.

Brilliant deduction, Dr. Watson.

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 ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 15:42 +0300
  Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-12 15:07 +0200
    Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-12 16:31 +0300
      Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 04:49 +0200
  Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-12 15:44 +0100
    Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:13 +0200
  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