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

Sujet : Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
De : ldo (at) *nospam* nz.invalid (Lawrence D'Oliveiro)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 10. Jul 2024, 06:55:18

Autres entêtes

Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6l7o5$1poc2$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Pan/0.158 (Avdiivka; )

On Sat, 06 Jul 2024 15:23:47 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
On Fri, 05 Jul 2024 11:46:38 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
No, arrays are not pointers.
>
Except array indexing is designed to be indistinguishable from pointer
arithmetic.

No, arrays are not pointers.

Can you point out any situation where this construct

&a[b]

might be valid, but this

(a + b)

(with the same declarations of “a” and “b”) might not?

Date	Sujet	#	Auteur
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	256	Lawrence D'Oliveiro
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	240	BGB
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	BGB
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	10	James Kuyper
9 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	4	David Brown
9 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	3	Michael S
9 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	David Brown
9 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	BGB
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	228	Keith Thompson
7 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	223	BGB
7 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	222	James Kuyper
7 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	221	BGB
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	4	Lawrence D'Oliveiro
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	Keith Thompson
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	2	James Kuyper
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	Kaz Kylheku
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	9	James Kuyper
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	5	bart
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	Lawrence D'Oliveiro
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	2	James Kuyper
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	bart
12 Aug 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	Tim Rentsch
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	3	Keith Thompson
7 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	2	James Kuyper
7 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	Keith Thompson
6 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	6	Keith Thompson
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	5	Lawrence D'Oliveiro
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	James Kuyper
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	Keith Thompson
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	2	Kaz Kylheku
10 Jul 24	Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?	1	Ben Bacarisse

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal