Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu.edu!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Typeof operator in C (Re: An Interesting View of "Strong" Vs. "Weak" Typing)
Message-ID: <5301@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 17 Jan 90 23:35:12 GMT
References: <16678@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <7106@tank.uchicago.edu> <-K016ODxds13@ficc.uu.net> <5263@buengc.BU.EDU> <-121H63ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <18180@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <JH216U4ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <5294@buengc.BU.EDU> <0A31K:Cggpc2@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: da.Silva.is.incapable.of.accepting.criticism
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 58

Before the fun starts, Ob. C:

Thanks to Andrew Koenig for giving me a well-deserved
refresher in paying attention to types, even seemingly
similar ones.  A pointer to an array has a very definite
difference from a pointer to the first element of the
array in pointer arithmetic, one manifestation of which,
of course, is

	*(elm1ptr + ARRAYSIZE) == *(arrayptr + 1)

And now for something completely unnecessary were it not for
the bad habits of some people:
In article <0A31K:Cggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>(for the folks on the sidelines... I'm flaming Blair P. Houghton. This

What else is new?

>> [There you go again, Peter, pretending you know better than the rest of the
>> planet whether we should be able to see if you're flaming someone who
>
>Have you ever heard of the references line?

Have you ever looked at one?  They contain site names and
either timestamps or serial numbers.  You tell me you can
email to the right person given only that info when their
article has dropped off the expiration cliff and I'll come
and kiss your superior-to-Bill-Joy feet.  Until then, you
can come and kiss my not-wiped-since-the-epoch ass.

>> Okay, so you want something that turns the type of an object
>> into data.
>
>No. I was merely pointing out that such an operator would have sticky
>semantics. Thanks for explaining this in more detail.

And the semantics are only sticky because [crude imagery
about Peter and chocolate ice cream omitted for the benefit
of our younger users --Blair] and because the problem
hadn't been stated very clearly.

>Don't you suppose that since you can't even keep that point straight without
>being distracted by people's names (as you said, you're inclined to flame
>me on sight. This implies that you're easily distracted by labels), you've
>made my point for me.

Labels are no problem.  Supercilious jerks who lack the
responsibility to attribute their sources are plagiarists,
and you in particular have shown throughout your entire
time on the net a predilection to ignore common courtesy
and custom.  I assume a defensive posture upon seeing you
the way I'd take my umbrella along on a dark and cloudy
day.  What was once a matter of conjecture is now a
probabilistic exercise with a simple, preemptive solution.

				--Blair
				  "I bet you pick your nose in
				   the grocery store, too."