Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsl!clyde!feg
From: feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ambiguous ?
Message-ID: <2446@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Oct 89 20:13:01 GMT
References: <11388@smoke.BRL.MIL> <14110@lanl.gov>
Sender: nntp@cbnewsl.ATT.COM
Reply-To: feg@clyde.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17

In article <14110@lanl.gov>, jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> From article <11388@smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn):
> > [...]
> 
> > One can learn to exploit them (or, in your case, perhaps, simply
> > to deal with them), but discussion about whether what is, should
> > be, are a waste of time.
> 
> Why?  Is C set in concrete?  What about C++ ???   How about (C++)++ ?
> Why are you so defensive about possible change - maybe even improvement?

o


Hey! Maybe it's time to talk about adding pointers again. (;-)

Forrest Gehrke clyde!feg