Address of array

[KW Heuer]

In article <211 at dg_rtp.UUCP> dg_rtp!throopw (Wayne Throop) writes:
>I agree that C's treatment of array/function/struct addresses is
>inconsistant, confusing, and limiting.  In essence a small notational
>convenience was traded for a large consistancy headache.  I think the
>tradeoff was wrong ...

Yeah, arrays are really second-class citizens in C.  I think it would have
been possible to make the array a "real" datatype, with [] an array (rather
than pointer) operator; I'd be quite willing to write &a[0] in lieu of the
automatic array-to-pointer conversion.  Of course it's too late to change
things in C; too many programs depend on it.  And C++ is committed to C
compatibility.  Are there any plans for a "D" language?

I already posted my comments on function addresses, so I won't discuss them
here.  Why do you include struct addresses in your complaint?  I don't see
anything inconsistent, confusing, or limited in them, at least nothing
analagous to function and array addresses.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint.