Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!gatech!rutgers!cmcl2!yale!wald-david
From: wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Addresses of parameters
Message-ID: <41738@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 30 Oct 88 04:09:29 GMT
References: <35620@XAIT.Xerox.COM> <10124@haddock.ima.isc.com> <35664@XAIT.Xerox.COM> <10164@haddock.ima.isc.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: 30

In article <10164@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>In article <35664@XAIT.Xerox.COM> g-rh@XAIT.Xerox.COM (Richard Harter) writes:
>>In article <10124@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>>>I've never considered it unportable to initialize auto variables to an
>>>arbitrary expression.
>>
>>Well, I didn't say it was not portable -- I said that I wouldn't think of
>>using it.
>
>I was responding to the previous poster, who considered it a "non-portable
>abbreviation for an extra line of code".

I'm afraid I was just adding confusion here.  By non-portable I meant
that I wouldn't be surprised to find compilers that couldn't deal with
it.

>Do you ever change the value of a parameter variable, or do you treat it
>as a constant?

If "do you" is a question of style, my answer is "never." I can't think
of any real excuse for doing it, and, as a matter of style, I like to
know that the parameters passed into a function I'm writing are always
available, and right where I think they are.



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