Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:55:26 -0500
From: Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes
References: <nodpg5$cr7$1@dont-email.me> <noiebn$fgf$1@dont-email.me> <87tweqdeuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nok7qb$p2f$1@dont-email.me> <87y441a697.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nomsnv$ifa$1@dont-email.me> <87r39s8w6c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nonlon$9t$1@dont-email.me> <nos9er$fr$1@dont-email.me> <lntwemnewg.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nosqgf$uu8$1@dont-email.me> <lnmvkdoovn.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <not07u$k7g$1@dont-email.me> <lna8gdomrv.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <not3oh$nk$1@dont-email.me> <ln60r1ojs3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <not8so$iji$1@dont-email.me> <ln1t1pog5y.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <notcof$voo$1@dont-email.me> <lnwpjhmy7a.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <e1hjd1Fjbs4U1@mid.individual.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:55:26 +0100
Message-ID: <878tvvcgr5.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JM0DfkldLJwBTP+LEVFRAbHD6kU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lines: 7
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ZDoLcjeX1i8f1Q6uJ9llyeqvQPPKqCG0Qz25TJ3vtanjoJh5Ijou3f144gk+94L1pzddxcowu9+ka2u!naACgT+fc1ZbVDP5924REJbVFV25hEin0RYRQGRzVZ7jFTCHcddUJL02OV7SrPPaGAbY9w==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 1859
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:92398

Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:

> An interesting thought exercise is to image C where arrays were first
> class objects and did not 'decay" to pointers.  Would that make for a
> better C?  Maybe.  Would it be a safer C?  Probably.

Absolutely unquestionably.