Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Answers, Chapter 1: TeX (was C's sins... and others)
Message-ID: <1704:Nov606:59:5790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 6 Nov 90 06:59:57 GMT
References: <66253@lanl.gov> <14269@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <3656@lanl.gov>
Organization: IR
Lines: 17

In article <3656@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> But the context of the discussion makes it
> clear that the person who posted TeX as an example of pointer efficiency
> was of the opinion that pointers and arrays differed importantly.

That is correct. In Q there is no relation between pointers and arrays,
except that a standard pointer abbreviation p[i] happens to look like
the array indexing builtin a[i].

> In
> fact, in the same news article that he proposed TeX, he also gave
> examples which attempted to prove the supposed superiority of pointers
> to arrays.

Close enough. I will return to this point several articles from now.

---Dan