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

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
Date	2024-08-19 02:30 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87le0tqoyg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <v9l95b$10ogv$1@dont-email.me> <87sev5s51s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v9nn5q$1f3op$1@dont-email.me> <87wmkdqt2t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v9u59h$2ivqb$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 19/08/2024 01:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> 
>
>>> 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.
>> No one has said any such thing, so I can't see how any more detail could
>> help.  I suspect you've lost track of the point being made.
>
> Probably, and perhaps not just me! But I'd still quite like to know exactly
> what it is that is marked as 'disallowed'.

I don't know how to explain it any better.  If you really want to know,
maybe you could say what /you/ think was incorrectly marked as
disallowed so I can see how you were interpreting the table.  You
obviously had something in mind or you could not have said Tim was
wrong.

>>>> 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?
>> I can't see what is confusing you about this.  I agree with the above
>> for exactly the reasons I wrote.
>
> Do you mean: 'You can't pass a pointer to a function that takes an array
> passed by reference'?

Yes.  As you say below, there would be a good reason not to allow that
in a C-like language with call-by reference added.

>> It would be wrong (and is wrong in
>> C++) to pass a pointer where an array reference is expected.
>
> Well, putting aside pass-by-reference, that would be wrong in C too, if you
> interpret 'array reference' to be a type like T(*)[], and a 'pointer' a
> type like T*.

I'm not sure what this true remark adds.  Everything that is in
discussion relates to call-by-reference where that clearly does not just
mean "passing a pointer".

> With pass-by-reference added to C, there would be stronger type checking,
> so if something is disallowed, it would be for a good reason, not just
> because Tim said so.

Or maybe, just maybe, Tim said it for good reason.

-- 
Ben.

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 ? 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

csiph-web