sizeof

[Norman Diamond]

> > ....  Or, you can use a language
> > that has a little bit of flexibility, and lets the compiler figure out
> > such things.
> > 
> > These are the reasons that Pascal, despite all of its shortcomings, is
> > more portable in some ways than C is.
> 
> ??? Conclusion does not follow.  Please do not confuse the complaints
> from people who want C to be different with what C is.

In Pascal, if you want variables to be able to hold integers of certain
sizes, you specify the bounds.  The compiler figures out if it needs a
short, long, etc.  Same for sizes of sets (though a few early brain-damaged
implementations of Pascal created non-believers).

Both Pascal and the present definition of C do this for pointers.
-- 

   Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy at waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet at csnet-relay.arpa

"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."