Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!geac!daveb
From: daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Another portable code question
Message-ID: <786@geac.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jun-87 10:15:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: geac.786
Posted: Tue Jun 16 10:15:00 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jun-87 00:37:38 EDT
References: <16673@cca.CCA.COM> <7048@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Brown)
Organization: GEAC Computers, Toronto, CANADA
Lines: 20
Summary: automatic type-changing belongs in c++, c[1], etc.


In article <7048@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>If you look at it properly, this is not so strange after all:
>Values of type `function' are changed to values of type `pointer
>to function' in most contexts.  Why not change them thus even in
>function call contexts, and then allow
>	pointer-to-function '(' argument-list ')' ';'
>and accept either form?

    Probably for the same reason that caused so much discussion over
automatic changing of array-name to pointer-to-array  -vs- taking
the address of an array-name:  the more the compiler does for you,
the more it has to guarantee that what it did will never cause 
future problems.  
    Friendlyness -> Complexity -> Defaults -> PL/1 
    My solution? Promote all the niceties to a language
called c+, c+-, c[1] or whatever and remove some of the warts on 
regular c.  Then call *that* language c--.

 --dave (then *REAL PROGRAMMERS* would use c-- instead of fortran) brown