Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!mjl
From: mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: mixing pointers and arrays
Message-ID: <469@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Aug-83 13:58:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ritcv.469
Posted: Mon Aug 15 13:58:11 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Aug-83 04:26:29 EDT
References: <1737@allegra.UUCP>, <1795@umcp-cs.UUCP>,  <191@cbosgd.UUCP> rlgvax.1002
Lines: 21

Personally I like the idea of array names being equivalent to the
address of the first item in the array.  Philosophically, an array name
is simply a pointer constant, just like 87 is an integer constant.  One
of the biggest wins for this interpretation is that C can handle
strings conveniently (I won't stretch the point to say "elegantly").
Since this is something of a religious issue, I will try to be tolerant
of the heathens and infidels who don't believe in the tenets of the One
True Language.

I do have a complaint about the interpretation of a structure names, in
that these should be identical to array names.  That is, if "foo" is a
structure, then "foo" by itself should be a pointer to the structure.
In this instance, my complaint is based on the desireability of
consistency rather than the emotional issues of what an array/structure
name should denote.  I would like to treat arrays and structures
identically.

By the way, I think the Whitesmith's compiler does (or previous
versions of it did) interpret structure names as pointers.

Mike Lutz {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl