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

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:

On 7/5/2024 5:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
 

On 7/5/2024 6:20 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:

While eliminating structs could also simplify things; structs also tend to
be a lot more useful.

Indeed.  And I'd have to use them for this!
>

>
Errm, the strategy I would assume is, as noted:
   int a[4][4];
   ...
   l=a[j][k];
Becomes:
   int a[16];
   ...
   l=a[j*4+k];

That's what you want to force me to write, but I can use and array of
arrays despite your arbitrary ban on them by simply putting the array in
a struct.

...

IN most contexts, I don't really see how a struct is preferable to a
multiply, but either way...

And I can't see how an array of arrays is harder for your compiler than
an array of structs.  C's indexing requires the compiler to know that
size of the items pointed to.

I suspect that there is something amiss with your design if you are
considering this limiting in order to simplify the compiler.  A simple
compiler should not care what kind of thing p points to in

  p[i]

only what size of object p points to.

Whole language design is still a hypothetical at this point anyways (and my
actual compiler does support multidimensional arrays).

Ah.  I think that when you've written most of it, you will see that
ruling out arrays of arrays will have not simplifying effect.

--
Ben.