Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_technology_discussion_=E2=86=92_does_the_world_need?=
 =?UTF-8?B?IGEgIm5ldyIgQyA/?=
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 19:22:24 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <v6f7vg$hgam$1@dont-email.me>
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$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 01:22:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="82ac0bc5ac8679abf13c09bba0ac1135";
	logging-data="573782"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/CsES0ShCaIj+1ukG7TzoPMZiluWVgjJY="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xEA5IpMrY5vJMJBHwacXyRpOjKA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6esqm$fian$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2389

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.