Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  sizeof
Message-ID: <7003@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Feb-85 17:07:08 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7003
Posted: Sat Feb 23 17:07:08 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 08:25:33 EST
References: <8006@brl-tgr.ARPA> <110@gitpyr.UUCP> <6949@watdaisy.UUCP> <8409@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25

> > ....  Or, you can use a language
> > that has a little bit of flexibility, and lets the compiler figure out
> > such things.
> > 
> > These are the reasons that Pascal, despite all of its shortcomings, is
> > more portable in some ways than C is.
> 
> ??? Conclusion does not follow.  Please do not confuse the complaints
> from people who want C to be different with what C is.

In Pascal, if you want variables to be able to hold integers of certain
sizes, you specify the bounds.  The compiler figures out if it needs a
short, long, etc.  Same for sizes of sets (though a few early brain-damaged
implementations of Pascal created non-believers).

Both Pascal and the present definition of C do this for pointers.
-- 

   Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."