Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 19:01:33 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <86wmlv9vcy.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me> <v67gt1$2vq6a$2@dont-email.me> <v687h2$36i6p$1@dont-email.me> <871q48w98e.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v68dsm$37sg2$1@dont-email.me> <87wmlzvfqp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:01:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4404f50b61bba69374b6468dfb9554fc";
	logging-data="1156329"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pvC8odAt6jhD8lSrqTjz7vJ/egb8Fzz4="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XMe0BtdC+rfIC6RwdrPqE2yyZVs=
	sha1:ZwOeg0bcIrmH+bzBaVigJtn14Ck=
Bytes: 3285

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

> On 2024-07-07, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 7/7/24 16:10, BGB wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/7/2024 9:03 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/7/24 00:55, BGB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> No, there is no implicitly defined pointer.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> This implicit pointer need not exist at a location in memory...
>>>>
>>>> Which is why C doesn't give you access to it's location in memory -
>>>> something you complained about earlier.
>>>
>>> I don't think I was claiming that one should have direct access to its
>>> location or value within the language, rather that their existence and
>>> behaviors could be acknowledged in the language design (for a "not
>>> quite C" language).
>>
>> I think that the existence of an implicit pointer would be a bad thing
>> to acknowledge, given that the language doesn't require that it exist,
>> and typical implementations don't use them.  From what I understand, the
>> fact that your implementation does have implicit pointers makes it a rarity.
>
> Ritchie's B language had arrays which contained a pointer to their
> first element.  Via a hack, it was possible to relocate an array.
>
> In C, such a thing is not simply not required;  it is ruled out
> by the detailed semantic description of arrays.  [...]

Not to muddy the waters, but there are circumstances where
it is advantageous to put an array "somewhere else" and
simply keep a pointer to it locally.

Having said that, it must also be said that such pointers
are purely implementation details and have no place in
the abstract machine.  As far as the abstract machine is
concerned, an array is just an array, and not an array
and a pointer.