Sujet : Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
De : jameskuyper (at) *nospam* alumni.caltech.edu (James Kuyper)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 08. Jul 2024, 00:22:24
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6f7vg$hgam$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/7/24 16:10, BGB wrote:
On 7/7/2024 9:03 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
On 7/7/24 00:55, BGB wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
...
No, there is no implicitly defined pointer.
...
This implicit pointer need not exist at a location in memory...
>
Which is why C doesn't give you access to it's location in memory -
something you complained about earlier.
>
I don't think I was claiming that one should have direct access to its
location or value within the language, rather that their existence and
behaviors could be acknowledged in the language design (for a "not
quite C" language).
I think that the existence of an implicit pointer would be a bad thing
to acknowledge, given that the language doesn't require that it exist,
and typical implementations don't use them. From what I understand, the
fact that your implementation does have implicit pointers makes it a rarity.
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?