Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!oliveb!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy@gorodish.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: type-indexed arrays (was: enum - enum ?)
Message-ID: <21213@sun.uucp>
Date: Tue, 16-Jun-87 13:35:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.21213
Posted: Tue Jun 16 13:35:45 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jun-87 02:30:37 EDT
References: <139@starfire.UUCP> <516@haddock.UUCP> <20540@sun.uucp> <566@haddock.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 12

> [2] Discard the idea that a[i] means *(a+i), and the automatic conversion of
> arrays to pointers.  This is probably best in the long run, but is a rather
> substantial change in the language, and would have to be phased in.

Note that C++ has implicitly acknowledged that the "a[i] means
*(a+i)" model isn't always right; when you add a new data type you
can define a subscripting operator for it.  I agree that it would be
best in the long run, but one is reminded of Keynes' remark about the
long run....
	Guy Harris
	{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
	guy@sun.com