Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The D Programming Language
Message-ID: <7395@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 2 Mar 88 17:52:20 GMT
References: <11702@brl-adm.ARPA> <243@eagle_snax.UUCP> <2245@geac.UUCP> <2718@mmintl.UUCP> <1988Feb25.202237.8688@utzoo.uucp> <7359@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2809@haddock.ISC.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 15

In article <2809@haddock.ISC.COM> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>If sizeof were measured in bits ...
>In article <7359@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>>My "short char" proposal did not REQUIRE bit addressability, but it did
>>allow it to be exploited if the implementor decided it was wanted.
>>(1 = sizeof(short char) <= sizeof(char).)

The reason for not insisting on sizeof() being in bits was that it would
add at least three bits to the required size_t for a byte-oriented
implementation, with no particular gain in that case.

>Yes, let's make *all* statements return values ...

I once designed a language like this for a special purpose.  It worked, but
you need to figure out what to do about declarations.  What values should
they return?