Sujet : Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
De : 643-408-1753 (at) *nospam* kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 10. Jul 2024, 12:27:09
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <20240710042117.423@kylheku.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
On 2024-07-10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <
ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
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?
Miller Genuine Daft at work again.
a[b] /means/ *(a + (b)) so your reasoning is circular.
Arrays are not pointers. Given arrays a and b of equal size:
- sizeof a is not sizeof &[0] other than by coincidence
- &a is not &a[0] -- different type
- a = b is invalid -- arrays are not modifiable lvalues
- arrays cannot be passed to functions nor returned;
pointers can.
- int (f[3])(void) { }, function returning array of 3 int,
is a constraint violation.
-- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txrCygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnalMastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
