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: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 01:43:38 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <86a5hep45h.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <v66eci$2qeee$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> <87ikxconq4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v6n8iu$24af0$1@dont-email.me> <20240711115418.00001cdf@yahoo.com> <v6oamt$2d8nn$1@dont-email.me> <v6oct4$2djgq$2@dont-email.me> <v6of96$2ekb0$1@dont-email.me> <v6ovfc$2hcpf$1@dont-email.me> <v6p4hf$2icph$1@dont-email.me> <v6qgpu$2t6p7$3@dont-email.me> <v6r33m$30grj$1@dont-email.me> <20240712154252.00005c2f@yahoo.com> <86o7717jj1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v6ti10$3gru4$1@dont-email.me> <v78af7$1qkuf$1@dont-email.me> <20240717163457.000067bb@yahoo.com> <v78piu$1su4u$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:43:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ea18f1ad42e487cc51a7cbceb5bfd3a2";
	logging-data="947424"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kwCQcy5HnLLBdI+KRKkXFuBkKJnD+r48="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:S1Zgx0e3FM22JINqlneJ3YRkEa4=
	sha1:KhZdecMk9rghsiEj2ns4cz/785I=
Bytes: 3030

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

[on comparing array arguments in C with call-by-reference]

> [...] the differences [between C rules and true call-by-reference]
> can be summarised here;  [...]
>
>                                  Call     Array access in callee
>
>     C call-by-value              F(A)     A[i]
>
>     true call-by-reference       H(A)     A[i]
>
> What the user has to write is what's important, and here it is clear
> that they write the same thing [in the two cases shown].


The comparison above is misleading because it is incomplete.
Let's compare the two modes more fully:


                        C call-by-value         call-by-reference
                        ===============         =================
  at call:

    (array argument)    F(A)                    H(A)

    (pointer argument)  F(p)                    (disallowed)

    (null argument)     F(0)                    (disallowed)


  inside function:

    (access)            A[i]                    A[i]

    (update)            A[i] = ...              A[i] = ...

    sizeof A            (pointer size)          (array size)

    A++                 (changes A variable)    (disallowed)

    A = (new value)     (changes A variable)    (disallowed)


The more complete comparion illustrate why C semantics should not
be thought of as call-by-reference.