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

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

The language could have helped a little by making this invalid:
>
    int A[20];
>
    void F(int B[20]) {}
>
The type of B looks just like that of A, but it isn't; the T[N] type
is silently changed to T*. The language could insist that you write:
>
    void F(int* B) {}

 But it doesn't.  Why should we waste time in comp.lang.c explaining how
C *could* have been defined?  It's hard enough to explain how it
actually is defined, especially with your contributions.
 

This way, it is far clearer that a pointer is being passed, and 'pass
by value' now makes more sense. The way B will be used is now
consistent with the same declaration anywhere else.

 But that's not C.