Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcso!mjs
From: mjs@hpfcso.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Pointers as 3-tuples (Re: JLG's flogging of horses (was Re: Relationship between C and C++))
Message-ID: <8960015@hpfcso.HP.COM>
Date: 11 Apr 90 15:48:23 GMT
References: <5.Q2H42xds13@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Lines: 12

>In fact, what you are recommending is a constraint on pointers which
>removes one of the _only_ features that I thought pointers were useful
>for.  I already had a pretty low opinion about the value of pointers
>and you are busy destroying what respect I had left.  If it is your
>intent to make pointers seem _less_ useful than they might be, you
>are succeeding.

I must come from a different background than you do.  Where I come from,
pointers are used for things like linked lists, binary trees, etc.
Arrays can be used for this only if you know a priori the ultimate size of
the data structure in question, or if your language allows dynamically
reallocatable arrays.