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

Sujet : Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?
De : Keith.S.Thompson+u (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Keith Thompson)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 11. Jul 2024, 02:36:05

Autres entêtes

Organisation : None to speak of
Message-ID : <87y168u2uy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

[...]

it already works alike that!
>
It does not. It works like passing a pointer by value, not like passing
an array by reference. You have clearly shown that you know the
difference. You are now just tolling.

"now"?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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