Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil
From: phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: strings
Message-ID: <6200004@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 18 May 89 15:42:00 GMT
References: <10245@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET:10245:ux1.cso.uiuc.edu:6200004:000:773
Nf-From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil    May 18 10:42:00 1989


> The major problem with using anything other than \0-terminated
> strings in C is that you give up the easy ability to define
> string constants a la "/etc/passwd".  Standard C compilers will
> create a \0-terminated string for these, regardless of what
> your home-made string utilities prefer.

If you wanted to redefine how strings worked as a part of the language
or as a special implementation, then the constants would of course be
defined that same way.  "/etc/passwd" is, of course, NOT a string, but
a constant address of array of char.  That is part of the origins of C.
A language extension could create a string primitive type, and the
compiler would have to build "/etc/passwd" as (string) or as (char *)
as appropriate to the type of usage.

--phil howard--