Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: technology discussion =?utf-8?Q?=E2=86=92?= does the world need
 a "new" C ?
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2024 23:41:32 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <87v81ita77.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
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> <87plrsultu.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v68sft$3a6lh$1@dont-email.me> <87ed87v4wi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v6adrm$3ljg6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 00:41:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="213b794f72069ae5495c2f80bfa9f0a2";
	logging-data="4177794"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ffNysWHEactpq/sm9FQJAQ7MUuxtfVEg="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zncSO2ieVnfEDPCm13iyzpoOzPE=
	sha1:lKx45UMgUaB0drTBed8P2p/bCII=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.fd39f1aebe37177f8bd3.20240706234132BST.87v81ita77.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 2824

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.