Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!cottrell@NBS-VMS
From: cottrell@NBS-VMS
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: \"Vectorizing C compiler for the Cray\"
Message-ID: <9925@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 14:53:14 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9925
Posted: Fri Apr 12 14:53:14 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 06:47:28 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 29

/*
> As a consultant to the above committee, I should mention that, in fact,
> TWO minor modifications to standard C semantics were proposed:  the
> one Dr. Brooks mentioned (I just can't see how people can get so steamed
> up over such a slight modification),

We're steamed because you didn't have to do it in the first place. A few
carefully placed ampersands is a small price to pay, even for someone
like myself who hates to type. Many funxions routinely mangle their
arguments because it doesn't affect the calling routine. Forget about
using the standard library routines unless you either modify them or
all calls to them. For example `strlen(ptr)' must now become 
`strlen(ptr[0])'. Gag me with a microchip!

> and another that will simplify our
> program conversion process IMMENSELY:  we are adding "equivalence" as a
> valid storage class.

Have you thought about using unions? You can even #define names to get
rid of the union names in the main program body.
 
> Still a few details to be worked out, though, before we propose it to
> the C standards committee.

If you've been reading mod.std.c, you've got about a snowball's chance.
Try using the features of the existing language before posing new ones.

	jim		cottrell@nbs
*/