Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU From: MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Undelivered mail Message-ID: <12306@brl-adm.ARPA> Date: 12 Mar 88 14:39:57 GMT Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA Lines: 32 Subject: Re: nasty evil pointers [Non-Deliverable: User does not exist or has never logged on] Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 7634 for SXJVK@ALASKA; Sat, 12 Mar 88 04:04 AST Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 5209; Sat, 12 Mar 88 05:03:32 PST Date: Fri, 11 Mar 88 23:54:38 GMT Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA Sender: Info-C List From: 00704a-Liber Subject: Re: nasty evil pointers Comments: To: info-c@BRL-SMOKE.arpa To: Vic Kapella In article <13100003@bucc2> brian@bucc2.UUCP writes: >It would be nice if we could check every pointer as it was used... This seems to be more of a job for the OS than for the language. If you try to check every single use of pointers, you end up with a language like Pascal :-). I don't mind the checking of pointers as long as it doesn't interfere with the efficiency that those of us who program in C have come to love :-). Also, if the pointer checks find an error, I would like it to transfer control to an error-handling section of my program so that I could either try to recover or go down *gracefully* (saving calculated data, etc.). -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_