Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Use of expression values in C
Message-ID: <869@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 00:05:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.869
Posted: Tue Jul 16 00:05:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 08:08:02 EDT
References: <474@crystal.UUCP> <397@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 19

> ... [an appropriate macro] almost looks like a subroutine call with a
> "var" parameter.

Then there are those of us who feel that ``var'' is an abomination
and that *all* calls should strictly be by value, and go out of
our way to make fixed size arrays hide inside structures.  Have
you ever tried to understand some piece of code that had various
calls, then (after long and painful thought) discovered that all
those variables were being modified by some other routine (which
might not even be in the same file!)?

I think it makes code much more readable when some special mark
precedes all parameters which are potentially modified.  (In other
words, it's not that I object to ``var'': I object to the callers
not having to (re)state that the object is indeed modifiable.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@maryland