Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!plogan
From: plogan@mentor.com (Patrick Logan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: C strongly typed?
Message-ID: <1990Mar14.150104.29789@mentor.com>
Date: 14 Mar 90 15:01:04 GMT
References: <90070.034113CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> <14318@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <90071.030339CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: engr
Lines: 26
In-reply-to: CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu's message of 12 Mar 90 08:03:39 GMT

In article <90071.030339CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu
 >(Charles Hannum) writes:
 >  In article <14318@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM
 > (lawrence.g.mayka) says:
 >  >
 >  >Despite the syntax, 'void *' has no semantic connection to 'void'
 >  >at all as far as I can see.  Indeed, they are almost opposites:
 >  >"anything" vs. "nothing." Apparently, C compiler writers simply
 >  >decided to apply some new semantics to whatever unused syntax was
 >  >lying around.

 >   As they did, but less effectively, with the keyword "static".

C++ plays even more fun games with the keyword "static". In that
language "static" has the same uses as C as well as a means of
introducing class-wide functions and data.

 >   Virtually,
 >  - Charles Martin Hannum II       "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within."

That's funny about "whatever unused syntax was lying around" because
it seems exactly what has been happening with C and C++.
-- 
Patrick Logan  uunet!mntgfx!plogan | 
Mentor Graphics Corporation        | 
Beaverton, Oregon 97005-7191   	   |