Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!mica!charlie
From: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: dpANS Fortran 8x
Message-ID: <1527@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Date: 17 Jun 89 22:29:58 GMT
References: <150@unmvax.unm.edu> <13941@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu
Reply-To: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Distribution: usa
Organization: UW Statistics, Seattle
Lines: 22
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:


In article <150@unmvax.unm.edu> brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd) writes:

> If you think of a pointer as a POINTER (pointing to, referencing, or aliasing
> another object), then all uses of pointers in the proposed Fortran standard
> fit within this notion (including "traditional" uses of pointers
> to implement linked lists and other data structures).
> In summary, the uses and description of pointers are consistent as proposed;
> it may not fit some notions of what people have thought of as pointers.

In article <13941@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) replies:

> I have _never_ seen or heard of a language with this model of pointers.
> Could you give me a reference to such a thing?  I would oppose this kind
> of junk in any case, but it would be interesting to see some language in
> which people have direct experience with such a badly thought out feature.

How about C?  C pointers point to objects.  Pointers that actually
happen to point to the same storage location are not required to
compare equal and so forth.

Just out of curiosity, why is this "junk"?