Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!udel!haven!adm!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Jim's commitment to misleading the populace
Message-ID: <7101:Nov1008:51:4590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 90 08:51:45 GMT
References: <24487:Nov906:17:2490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <5498@lanl.gov>
Organization: IR
Lines: 43
X-Original-Subject: Re: Answers, Chapter 2: to point or not to point

In article <5498@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> From article <24487:Nov906:17:2490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> >> if the array
> >> code were preprocessed into pointers (which you _did_ suggest should
> >> be done).
> > Did I really? Where? I certainly don't believe that all array code
> > should be converted into pointer code.
  [ Jim quotes me: ]
> : Jim, nothing in Nemesis that you've described to me requires any
> : extensions to implement in C; [...]
> : [...]                       The programmer can get all the greatness and
> : glory of the Giles Gaggle, with whatever typechecking and constraints
> : you want, with at most a C++-like preprocessor. Agreed?
> If this doesn't imply converting all higher structures into pointers,
> what does it mean?

I am getting really, really, really sick of how you're twisting my
statements, taking things out of context, and doing whatever else might
be necessary to keep arguing. Others have posted similar opinions.

There is NOTHING in the above quote that implies that arrays can or
should be implemented in terms of pointers, even if that were possible.
I was talking about ``recursive data structures,'' ``sequences,'' and
all that other high-level crap that *can* be implemented on top of C.
My point (which you still haven't acknowledged) is that since the Giles
Gaggle can be implemented on top of C with whatever syntax you want, all
consideration of whether the Gaggle is useful must be in terms of
implementation efficiency. That has NOTHING to do with arrays.

I believe that arrays should be a much more fundamental part of the
language, and that pointers and arrays should be much more cleanly
separated than they are in C. You know I hold this opinion. When it's
convenient you observe that I think pointers and arrays are entirely
different. Now it's convenient to say the opposite, so you do exactly
that without a hint of remorse.

I find your behavior absolutely disgusting. Sure, I often engage in some
nasty rhetorical tricks, and I sometimes dodge the issue at hand; but I
never pervert anyone's opinion, no matter how desperate I am to win an
argument. And when I do realize that I've misinterpreted something, I'll
say so. Maybe you should learn to do the same.

---Dan