Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: technology discussion =?utf-8?Q?=E2=86=92?= does the world need
 a "new" C ?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:36:00 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <86msldo4e7.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me> <87r0c1nzjj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v6m716$1urj4$1@dont-email.me> <87ikxconq4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v6n8iu$24af0$1@dont-email.me> <20240711115418.00001cdf@yahoo.com> <v6oamt$2d8nn$1@dont-email.me> <v6oct4$2djgq$2@dont-email.me> <v6of96$2ekb0$1@dont-email.me> <v6ovfc$2hcpf$1@dont-email.me> <v6p4hf$2icph$1@dont-email.me> <v6qgpu$2t6p7$3@dont-email.me> <v6r33m$30grj$1@dont-email.me> <20240712154252.00005c2f@yahoo.com> <86o7717jj1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v6ti10$3gru4$1@dont-email.me> <v78af7$1qkuf$1@dont-email.me> <20240717163457.000067bb@yahoo.com> <v78piu$1su4u$1@dont-email.me> <86a5hep45h.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v9ktep$v5sk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 23:36:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ea18f1ad42e487cc51a7cbceb5bfd3a2";
	logging-data="1168008"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+r342aGpfkRQK6yJxGVykBkwuuNILM06I="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6ujThQuHqUiWKrl0IXbtSRLaxmc=
	sha1:FDxT55NpfS1ZbWO5mwIPrquaWmg=
Bytes: 2935

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 15/08/2024 09:43, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>> [on comparing array arguments in C with call-by-reference]
>>
>>> [...] the differences [between C rules and true call-by-reference]
>>> can be summarised here;  [...]
>>>
>>>                                   Call     Array access in callee
>>>
>>>      C call-by-value              F(A)     A[i]
>>>
>>>      true call-by-reference       H(A)     A[i]
>>>
>>> What the user has to write is what's important, and here it is clear
>>> that they write the same thing [in the two cases shown].
>>
>> The comparison above is misleading because it is incomplete.
>> Let's compare the two modes more fully:
>>
>>
>>                          C call-by-value         call-by-reference
>>                          ===============         =================
>>    at call:
>>
>>      (array argument)    F(A)                    H(A)
>>
>>      (pointer argument)  F(p)                    (disallowed)
>
> My posts were about passing *arrays* and the fact that C's
> pass-by-value was remarkably similar to pass-by-reference.

I see.  So your point is, if we ignore all the ways that the two
modes are different then they are exactly the same.

Brilliant deduction, Dr. Watson.