Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!uc!noc.MR.NET!msi.umn.edu!umeecs!umich!samsung!usc!apple!bionet!agate!shelby!csli!poser
From: poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: long identifiers
Keywords: identifiers
Message-ID: <16049@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 26 Oct 90 00:59:01 GMT
References: <15953@csli.Stanford.EDU> <487@taumet.com> <15959@csli.Stanford.EDU> <272477A0.6845@tct.uucp> <I3O6UI7@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: poser@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Poser)
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 13

In article <I3O6UI7@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> >...and which given its nature (it requires graphics facilities,
>> >a mouse, lots of memory, etc.) is extremely unlikely to be ported
>> >to old machines.
>
>IBM PS/2 Model 30 running Windows 286? Sizeof(char *) == 4, sizeof(int) == 2.
>
>Come again?

I think that Peter has misread the message of mine that he quotes.
I said that assuming that one could store a pointer in an int
was the sort of machine dependency that SHOULD be assiduously
avoided.