Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!topaz!bentley!kwh
From: kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Address of array
Message-ID: <621@bentley.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 21:56:33 EST
Article-I.D.: bentley.621
Posted: Mon Mar 10 21:56:33 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 21:50:07 EST
References: <750@abic.UUCP>, <211@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner
Lines: 19

In article <211@dg_rtp.UUCP> dg_rtp!throopw (Wayne Throop) writes:
>I agree that C's treatment of array/function/struct addresses is
>inconsistant, confusing, and limiting.  In essence a small notational
>convenience was traded for a large consistancy headache.  I think the
>tradeoff was wrong ...

Yeah, arrays are really second-class citizens in C.  I think it would have
been possible to make the array a "real" datatype, with [] an array (rather
than pointer) operator; I'd be quite willing to write &a[0] in lieu of the
automatic array-to-pointer conversion.  Of course it's too late to change
things in C; too many programs depend on it.  And C++ is committed to C
compatibility.  Are there any plans for a "D" language?

I already posted my comments on function addresses, so I won't discuss them
here.  Why do you include struct addresses in your complaint?  I don't see
anything inconsistent, confusing, or limited in them, at least nothing
analagous to function and array addresses.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint.