Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: technology discussion =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=86=92?= does the world need
 a "new" C ?
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:31:32 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <20240711113132.000015a4@yahoo.com>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6ard1$3ngh6$4@dont-email.me>
	<v6b0jv$3nnt6$1@dont-email.me>
	<87h6d2uox5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<v6d779$6rk5$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6e76u$c0i9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6esqm$fian$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6f7vg$hgam$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240707164747.258@kylheku.com>
	<v6gl83$s72a$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6h8ao$ur1v$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6jhk3$1drd6$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6jiud$1dsjb$1@dont-email.me>
	<877cdur1z9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6joi4$1epoj$1@dont-email.me>
	<871q42qy33.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6k6i0$1h4d3$1@dont-email.me>
	<87ed82p28y.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6m03l$1tf05$1@dont-email.me>
	<87r0c1nzjj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6m716$1urj4$1@dont-email.me>
	<86ikxd8czu.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<v6mggd$20g3f$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240710213910.00000afd@yahoo.com>
	<v6mm02$21cpb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:31:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc2ba001c5d2368b495ec9c7cf5e7c33";
	logging-data="2492964"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194iXPSpUhpPq4+vHm7afQN4eN0VorgNPI="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RB4ShNttmyCzvQfsQTy0yyDHER0=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 4354

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:04:35 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> On 10/07/2024 19:39, Michael S wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:30:54 +0100
> > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 10/07/2024 16:48, Tim Rentsch wrote:  
> >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> >>>      
> >>>> I earlier asked this:
> >>>>
> >>>> "So if arrays aren't passed by value in C, and they aren't passed
> >>>> by reference, then how the hell ARE they passed?!"  
> >>>
> >>> They aren't.  C allows lots of things to be passed as an argument
> >>> to a function:  several varieties of numeric values, structs,
> >>> unions, and pointers, including both pointers to object types and
> >>> pointers to function types.  C does not have a way for a function
> >>> to take an argument that is either an array or a function.  There
> >>> is a way to take pointers to those things, but not the things
> >>> themselves.  Arrays and functions are second-class values in C.  
> >>
> >> That's a good point. It's not just arrays that can't be passed by
> >> value (because the language says so) but also functions (because
> >> its not meaningful).
> >>
> >> Yet, although pointers to arrays and function can be passed
> >> (without even doing anything special like using &), you are not
> >> allowed to say that anything is passed by reference in C!
> >>
> >> The automatic conversion to a pointer, which is also a feature of
> >> true pass-by-reference, doesn't count.
> >>
> >> Not needing an explicit deref inside the callee (another
> >> characteristic of pass-by-reference) doesn't count either.  
> > 
> > It does not count, because automatic conversion to a pointer is not
> > something that happens only during parameter passing. For arrays, it
> > happens in all contexts except sizeof(). For functions, it happens
> > in all contexts except function call. Or, may be, including
> > function call, in this case (but not in case of arrays) it depends
> > on point of view. 
> 
> Suppose that was to happen in all contexts, not just for arrays and 
> functions, but for all types.
>
> That means that if A, B, C were numbers, then any call such as F(A,
> B, C) would pass the addresses of the numbers rather than their
> values.
> 
> According to what people have said, C would STILL be a language that 
> passed thing by value, and never by automatic reference.
> 
> Yet in my scenario that now sounds ludicrous.
> 

No, if dereference operator would be required consistently in nearly
all contexts then it would not be ludicrous at all.