Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!shamash!paul
From: paul@u02.svl.cdc.com (Paul Kohlmiller)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: X3J11 Pleasanton meeting summary
Message-ID: <26742@shamash.cdc.com>
Date: 9 Oct 90 18:49:22 GMT
References: <13996@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1990Oct3.184359.2348@sq.sq.com> <1737:Oct803:02:5890@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <14049@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: news@shamash.cdc.com
Lines: 20

I want to thank Doug for that description of the over-indexed array problem. I
did not take as many notes as Doug did at that meeting but there are two more
points to be made in favor of the committee's decision and one in favor of
Dave P.'s position. First, my understanding of what Bill Plauger said is that
the compiler might be forced to fully pack a multidimensional array but it is
not forced to do the correct pointer arithmetic when array are overindexed.
Secondly, many people have pointed out that it is still possible to take the
address of the array and do some "naked" arithmetic on it. The problem with
overindexing is that it is "as if" the address was taken in a quite way.
I think Dave feels that the standard supports his position but that this 
kind of overindexing is needed to allow for (excuse me in advance for
introducing this word) polymorphic arrays. (Arrays that can change shape.)
I think the real solution for polymorphic arrays lies within NCEG's 
discussion of variable dimensioned arrays.

--
     // Paul H. Kohlmiller           //  "Cybers, Macs and Mips"         //
     // Control Data Corporation     // Internet: paul@u02.svl.cdc.com   //
     // All comments are strictly    // America Online: Paul CDC         //
     // my own.                      // Compuserve: 71170,2064           //