Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!yale!wald-david
From: wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Broken compilers (Was Portability of passing/operating on structures)
Message-ID: <41183@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 24 Oct 88 23:50:21 GMT
References: <8810111934.AA21941@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU> <8308@alice.UUCP> <73946@sun.uucp> <7356@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158
Lines: 17

In article <7356@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
...
>This is my main objection to structure and array assignment and
>passing.  Aside from being hideously wasteful of time and stack space,
>they permit common typo errors (omission of &) to go undetected.

If you consider this a language problem, then why are you writing in the
language that uses both = and == as operators?

This is not a flame against clarity, but, given the general style of C,
the "omission of &" problem doesn't seem a very strong argument.


============================================================================
David Wald                                              wald-david@yale.UUCP
						       waldave@yalevm.bitnet
============================================================================