Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.std.c > #1744

Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C"

From Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups comp.std.c
Subject Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C"
Date 2012-12-17 15:44 -0800
Organization None to speak of
Message-ID <lntxrkgs6o.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <be6d64cd-2553-48e7-99b4-c0742b611119@googlegroups.com> <k44qnl$k3t$1@dont-email.me> <kan97e$h4n$1@dont-email.me> <lnobhsilu6.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <kao9kc$9bb$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw


Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/17/2012 13:18, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> If C were to add some kind of pass-by-reference mechanism (other than
>> the existing pass-a-pointer-by-value), it might be useful to require
>> some distinguishing syntax on the call.  For example, assuming the
>> addition of a "ref" keyword:
>>
>>      void increment(ref int n) {
>>          n ++;
>>      }
>>
>>      int x = 42;
>>      /* increment(x); would be illegal */
>>      increment(ref x);
>>      /* now x == 43 */
>>
>
> While I agree that distinguishing syntax is desirable, I don't quite 
> follow what the advantage of that particular example is, over pointers. 
>   (Of course, that mightn't've been a demonstration of an advantage, but 
> simply of distinguishing syntax.)

It's not an advantage over pointers.  It's an advantage over a
hypothetical pass-by-reference mechanism in which you can't tell,
by looking at a call, whether that call might modify the value of
the passed object.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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


Thread

Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-30 12:48 -0700
  Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-08-31 22:17 +0000
    Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-08-31 17:26 -0700
      Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-09-02 22:20 +0200
        Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 10:55 -0500
          Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 16:39 +0000
            Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 13:18 -0500
  Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 10:52 +0200
  Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Per <per.mathisen@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 06:49 -0700
    Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-09-28 11:36 -0700
      Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Per <per.mathisen@gmail.com> - 2012-10-01 09:38 -0700
        Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-10-01 11:38 -0700
      Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 09:11 -0500
        Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-17 10:18 -0800
          Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 18:24 -0500
            Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-17 18:32 -0500
            Re: Second draft, "Safe arrays and pointers for C" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-17 15:44 -0800

csiph-web