🚀 go-pugleaf

You should probably hit `N' here...	-Ken

peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

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

peter>Fine. You want to play name games. THe question at hand is "what is a
peter>pointer", or "what is it that makes pointers dangerous". To answer this
peter>question you have to ask "what is a pointer" in terms of what we want
peter>to know about them. 

What is wrong with using the standard definition of pointer?  I have
given a number of references which support my interpretation.  I think
that it is you who are playing word games by redefining things as you
go along.

peter>If you think the fact that a pointer points at a
peter>machine address (an implementation detail) is significant, then is Sabre-C
peter>a pointerless language? If so, what is significantly different between
peter>it and conventional C implementations?

I know of no programming language called "Sabre-C".  You are confusing
language with implementation here.

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

peter>No, the term "token" has a meaning in the larger world of CS: a token is
peter>an opaque object that refers to another object. In the context of compilers
peter>it's a small easily-handled object that refers to a string of characters.

In the context of compilers, a "token" is a (meaningless) unit of
syntax.  Meanings come into play in the semantics which results from
the analysis.  I have looked through a number of standard CS texts and
have been unable to find a definition of "token" other than an a
meaningless (but unique) marker used in token-ring networks or as a
syntactic unit in computer language analysis.  I ask again, what are
the references which support your definition?

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

So where has someone defined pointer == link?  Go back and look up
"pointer" in a few standard textbooks.

-Ken