Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: When it is amoral... (Re: When is a cast not a cast?)
Message-ID: <2805@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 8 May 89 21:04:12 GMT
References: <2747@buengc.BU.EDU> <2763@buengc.BU.EDU> <5779@xyzzy.UUCP>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 36

In article <5779@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@bert.dg.com (Wayne A. Throop) enscreeds:
>> bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
>> Thanks to all who pushed me upright.  

Yeah, thanks for the whiplash... ( ;-) just kidding :-) )

>The point is, Blair expects an object defined as one type to behave both
>as if it were a pointer and an offset at the same time.  This is NOT sensible.

Nay, I want it to behave as an object, and not as some nebulous changeling
requiring maintenance-by-fiat.  If one is yea-big and the other is yo-big,
then I damn well want the difference between them to be yea-yo, at the
very least when I _tell_ it to be so.

It's sensible aplenty.  The only question is:  does it add sufficient
functionality to justify the trouble it allows?  That there's a question
for the more scientific amongst this gaggle of Computo-Scientists.

>If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which coult not
>possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
>my theory would absolutely break down.

Interesting logic in there: "If it could...then...would absolutely"

It implies that it must be that "it" could not; since therefore the theory
would break down absolutely, and since the theory doesn't, then therefore
"it" couldn't "be demonstrated".

Good.  That saves me a lot of time trying to demonstrate it.

>                              --- Charles Darwin

I get flamed by the most impressive people...

				--Blair
				  "Speaking of fiat..."