Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Clarification needed on Pointers/Arrays
Message-ID: <9766@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 2 Mar 89 14:51:49 GMT
References: <1436@etive.ed.ac.uk> <889@acf3.NYU.EDU> <11840@haddock.ima.isc.com> <890@acf3.NYU.EDU> <11914@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 15

In article <11914@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
-In article <890@acf3.NYU.EDU> sabbagh@acf3.UUCP () writes:
->	int a[10],b[10];
->	a = b;
-Not so.  C has had struct copy for the last decade; I understand that array
-copy was not added at the same time only because they couldn't find a clean
-way to fit it into the existing language.  The invention of prototypes did
-provide a (relatively) clean path, but unfortunately X3J11 didn't take it.

Excuse me, but C array types were already too badly broken to be fixed
by anything X3J11 could do.  Of course we could have devised a new
language with arrays as first-class citizens, but it wouldn't be C.

There are problems with C arrays beyond the conversion of [] to * in
formal function parameters.