Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!decwrl!sun!guy
From: guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C vs. FORTRAN (was: What should be added to C)
Message-ID: <3770@sun.uucp>
Date: Tue, 27-May-86 17:28:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.3770
Posted: Tue May 27 17:28:43 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 29-May-86 04:16:13 EDT
References: <1594@ecsvax.UUCP> <853@bentley.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 13

> That probably wouldn't be too hard to add to C; in fact it might be possible
> to generalize it to allow *any* nonstatic array declaration to have variable
> size (within reason).

Where "within reason" presumably includes "not inside a structure
declaration".  Even just having "auto" arrays with variable size would mean
that the offset of an "auto" variable from the stack/frame pointer would not
necessarily be a constant.  What about in a "typedef" (or would that be
treated as a static declaration)?
-- 
	Guy Harris
	{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
	guy@sun.arpa