Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?
Message-ID: <8201@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 1 Jul 88 18:40:51 GMT
References: <2742@utastro.UUCP> <20008@beta.UUCP> <224@raunvis.UUCP> <1189@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <20454@beta.lanl.gov> <829@garth.UUCP> <8184@brl-smoke.ARPA> <836@garth.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <836@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes:
>For a "(complicated-type)value" cast, it overlays the
>value's mode with a new mode--no coercion or any type of conversion is
>applied.

Wrong.  A C cast operator ALWAYS behaves as if an assignment to
an unnamed temporary variable is performed.  All this talk about
"modes" is incorrect.

>To claim that C is an orthogonal and extensible language indicates a blithe
>naiviety about these terms.

So, who's making such a claim?

Perhaps to make claims about C without understanding it indicates
something, too...