Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_technology_discussion_=E2=86=92_does_the_world_need?=
 =?UTF-8?B?IGEgIm5ldyIgQyA/?=
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 21:36:20 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v6pfo3$2jijk$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$1@dont-email.me> <v6gl83$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> <865xtc87yo.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <v6ol14$2fdrj$1@dont-email.me> <87msmnu5e3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <v6pdcf$2jijk$1@dont-email.me> <87frsfu0yp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:36:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="92757c0b3eb137c08e71ba54311788f0";
	logging-data="2738804"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3wiYRtVbknIE6Al9Of+l8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t3tr0nmLwqxUf1DucAjUuSEHHgE=
In-Reply-To: <87frsfu0yp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2543

On 11/07/2024 21:29, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

>> The language could have helped a little by making this invalid:
>>
>>     int A[20];
>>
>>     void F(int B[20]) {}
>>
>> The type of B looks just like that of A, but it isn't; the T[N] type
>> is silently changed to T*. The language could insist that you write:
>>
>>     void F(int* B) {}
> 
> But it doesn't.  Why should we waste time in comp.lang.c explaining how
> C *could* have been defined?  It's hard enough to explain how it
> actually is defined, especially with your contributions.
> 
>> This way, it is far clearer that a pointer is being passed, and 'pass
>> by value' now makes more sense. The way B will be used is now
>> consistent with the same declaration anywhere else.
> 
> But that's not C.

Why isn't it C?