Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: C++ and garbage collection (Was: Re: What is Objective C?)
Message-ID: <57475@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 17 Sep 90 18:49:07 GMT
References: <PCG.90Sep11165843@athene.cs.aber.ac.uk> <1990Sep12.074154.657@tukki.jyu.fi> <PCG.90Sep14160845@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> <1990Sep16.090226.11051@tukki.jyu.fi>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 17

In article <1990Sep16.090226.11051@tukki.jyu.fi> sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:
>To go for more nit-picking, one might quarrel about the "exact
>equivalence".  For instance, I suppose it is at least legal for
>a pointer variable to advance just beyond the last element of an array,
>otherwise C/C++ programmers couldn't employ their cherished
>"*p++" idiom.

This is covered on pgs 72-73 of E&S.  Both pointers and array indexing
allow one to refer to the location *one* beyond the high end of an array --
as long as you do not actually dereference that location.

char a[10];
char* p1 = &a[10];
char* p2 = a+10;

The assignments to p1 and p2 are both legal, and "equivalent."  ....Which has
little or nothing to do with C/C++ pointer hackery as actually practiced....