Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!arisia!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "for" loops in C ...
Message-ID: <645@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 8 Nov 88 02:40:22 GMT
References: <867@cernvax.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 12

In article <867@cernvax.UUCP> hjm@cernvax.UUCP (Hubert Matthews) writes:
>I personally, IMHO, would be happy with a[next] for structure access or
>a.i for array access.  Isn't it all really the same and just a matter
>of conditioning?  As I said, it's not obvious how strong typing would
>work in such a language, but it would eliminate one more thing for the
>compiler writers to have to do *and get right*. :-)

In POP, arg.fn and fn(arg) are merely syntactic variants, so one can
write	record.field -> array(subscript);
or	field(record) -> subscript.array;
and it's all the same thing.  How would string typing work?  Just like
it always did: the information comes from the (bindings of) the
identifiers, not the punctuation marks.