Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C array follies 1
Message-ID: <179@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 19:59:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.179
Posted: Mon Sep  9 19:59:02 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 23:31:28 EDT
References: <171@rtp47.UUCP> <10299@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 29

> > [Original article questions practice of having sizeof an array
> > formal always return pointer size]

> ... Are you proposing that C should pass the dimentions of the array
> also so a called function can know these things?  Or maybe since the
> pointer was declared as 'int x[2][2][2];' you want sizeof x to be 8
> ints?

I am suggesting that the latter notion is a good idea.  In particular,
the formal declaration
        int x[3];
should make sizeof(x) == (sizeof(int) * 3).  The formal declaration
        int *x;
should make sizeof(x) == sizeof(int *).  The formal declaration
        int x[];
is a problem.  I would prefer it if sizeof(x) yeilded a diagnostic.
Failing that, sizeof(x) == sizeof(int *) is next best, I suppose.

> I prefer to keep C's ability to pass pointers to arrays or subarrays.

So do I.  The above suggestion does not affect this.  It only affects
what happens when sizeof is applied to such a formal name.  I dislike
the incongruity that in this code fragment

        void f(x) int x[3]; { int y[3]; ... }

sizeof(x) != sizeof(y).  This seems like a misfeature to me.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw