derived types

[Norman Diamond]

> /*
> uncle! i give! i accept the fact that sizeof(int) may not be sizeof(int *).
> i DO believe that sizeof(foo *) should be sizeof(bar *). otherwise it's
> just too confusing. more irrational viewpoints later.
> */

I agree that it is confusing when sizeof(foo *) != sizeof(bar *).
Fortunately, machines like this are invented a little bit less frequently
than those that have sizeof(int) != sizeof(int *).
However, the question remains:

When a machine has such confusing (and obnoxious and <ROT13>) characteristics,
we have a choice of:
(1)  Reflecting it in C,
(2)  Wasting memory so that smaller pointers can be allocated the same amount
       of memory as larger pointers, or
(3)  Not allowing C compilers to exist for that machine.
-- 

   Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!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."