Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!richard From: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Whose code should we break? ( was Re: 64 bit C ) Message-ID: <4197@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 20 Feb 91 16:43:48 GMT References: <1215@dms.UUCP> <65469@brunix.UUCP> <4754@lib.tmc.edu> Reply-To: richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) Distribution: comp.arch Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 11 In article <4754@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >Operating on pointers as though they had no meaning beyond their numeric >value is inherently nonportable, and if you do that, you deserve to lose. So everyone who writes a nonportable program deserves to lose? -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin