🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <422@data.UUCP> kend@data.UUCP (Ken Dickey) writes:
> The definition of "pointer" comes from an extensive body of literature
> on computation.  You should use a term with a meaning closer to what
> you wish to express rather than redefining a term with an established
> meaning.  CS is already full of overdefined terms.

Fine. You want to play name games. THe question at hand is "what is a
pointer", or "what is it that makes pointers dangerous". To answer this
question you have to ask "what is a pointer" in terms of what we want
to know about them. If you think the fact that a pointer points at a
machine address (an implementation detail) is significant, then is Sabre-C
a pointerless language? If so, what is significantly different between
it and conventional C implementations?

> In the context of computer programming languages, "token" has a
> meaning in the context of syntax.  I did not know you were speaking of
> networks.  What is the meaning of "pointer" in the context of network?

No, the term "token" has a meaning in the larger world of CS: a token is
an opaque object that refers to another object. In the context of compilers
it's a small easily-handled object that refers to a string of characters.
In the context of a network it's a logical object that's passed between
machines on the network to indicate which machine has the right to pass
a message on.

(in the context of a network, I guess "xds13.ferranti.com" is a pointer)

> I am arguing whether "pointers" are available as a source language
> concept.

So am I.

Warning... skip the next few exchanges if quibbles about irrelevent
analogies bore you.

> If I have a "house", it is defined in terms of roof, walls,
> etc.  I speak of being in a particular room, etc.  A house may be (but
> does not have to be) constructed partially from "boards".  I do not
> talk about going from room to room in a house by speaking about
> boards.

Fine, but for some reason you're denying that an apartment is a house
because it doesn't have 4 walls of its own.

> Boards are not a "house-level" concept.  Why do you insist on
> redefining board to be a unit of room traversal?

You're completely misinterpreting me if you think that. I don't care what
the underlying implementation does. It doesn't have to have machine
addresses in the implementation anywhere... look at the UNIX file system:
a link (either symbolic or hard) is a pointer, but there are no CPU
addresses involved at all. Hell, a symbolic link can point into another
address space!

> [Seriously, let's take the language bashing off-line]

Huh? Who's language-bashing?
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com