Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!robison
From: robison@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Relationship between C and C++
Message-ID: <5200051@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 22 Mar 90 03:20:10 GMT
References: <8432@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:hubcap.clemson.edu:8432:m.cs.uiuc.edu:5200051:000:870
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!robison    Mar 20 22:47:00 1990


>  /* Written 4:17 pm Mar 20, 1990 by preston@titan.rice.edu in comp.lang.misc*/
>  In article <5200048@m.cs.uiuc.edu> robison@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>  
>  >Can anyone clue me as to the basis for pointer paranoia?
>  
>  Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm stoopid.
>  
   [Followed by examples of pointer arithmetic and commentary that 
   pointer operations may take more than one machine instruction.]

This is a curiously counter-revolutionary argument against pointer 
arithmetic.  Every other argument that I've seen has said that pointers are 
a too *low-level* construct.  The remarks about hidden multiplications
in pointer addition apply equally well to array indexing, so I fail
to see why pointers are any more demonic than arrays.  I grant the 
objection to pointer subtraction.  I tend to avoid it for exactly the 
reasons given.

- Arch D. Robison