Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why I use C instead of fortran
Message-ID: <7356@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 28 Feb 88 00:04:48 GMT
References: <11440@brl-adm.ARPA> <3597@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> <257@tolsun.oulu.fi> <7217@brl-smoke.ARPA> <72@obie.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 17

In article <72@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes:
>In article <7217@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
>> There are many other types of number (and other mathematical objects)
>> that neither language supports.  At least with C I can implement my
>> own support for them.
>And with C++, you can even make them look like a *real* (no pun
>intended) data type, and define the standard operators for them (you
>know, + - * / < > ==).

You're assuming that there is an analog of these operators defined
for my "funny numbers", and that there are no other operators of
equal of greater importance.  Unfortunately this isn't true of all
kinds of "funny numbers".  Take holors as one example; addition is
well-defined, but not multiplication; instead there are several
ways to do something analogous to multiplication, which the
conventional notation simply cannot support.  Or, you might find
Boolean algebra operating on bit variables a more familiar example.