Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: numerical C vs C++
Message-ID: <70605@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 11 Feb 91 20:32:49 GMT
References: <1920001@hpsad.HP.COM>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 21

In article <1920001@hpsad.HP.COM> sdw@hpsad.HP.COM (Steve Warwick) writes:
|I just got done talking to a vendor of Digital Signal processors
|who mentioned that their company is involved with a group trying
|to define something called "numerical C" which defines a set of 
|special types and operatiors which are supposedly tuned to 
|typical DSP/Vector processing applications. 
|
| I was troubled by this in that it appears that language constructs
|available in C++ provedes syntax which could cover these cases, such
|as fractional integer arithmetic, and vectorized expressions.  In
|addition, such modules could be supported on non-DSP platforms given a
|suitable supprt library.

I agree, I share this concern.

See, I believe, December "Journal C Language Translation" for a discussion
of "restricted" pointer types [better know as 'son of noalias']

A better solution, I believe, is for C++ to clean up references, and then to
define clearly what exactly is being aliased by various types of pointers and 
references.