Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Re^2: Some things that pointer-less languages can't do efficiently
Message-ID: <7QP6HXD@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 27 Oct 90 19:40:16 GMT
References: <26739:Oct1023:44:2690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <65450@lanl.gov> <3702.27287cf3@cc.helsinki.fi>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 16

In article <3702.27287cf3@cc.helsinki.fi>, jpiitulainen@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
> Is a pair a "token that refers" or does it contain two of those?  If you
> define "pointer" so that pairs, vectors, variables and procedures and
> everything built of them become "pointers", then of course Scheme has
> pointers, but what's the point?  Also, in that case the word is no
> longer useful to describe C pointers.

Sure it is. I'm defining a pointer in terms of an object and operations
on that object. A functional definition of a pointer, including all the
dangerous (re: pointer as the GOTO of the '90s) aspects of this object. If
something looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you're welcome to
call it an aquatic waterfowl but it'll taste the same.

Now if you want to discuss whether the names "Duck", "Aquatic Waterfowl",
or even "Mallard" or "Pekin" are more useful... go right ahead. I'll just get
back to cooking.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com