🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <423@data.UUCP> kend@data.UUCP (Ken Dickey) writes:
> What is wrong with using the standard definition of pointer?

Because it's not useful in this context.

> I have given a number of references which support my interpretation.

With all due respect, that is just another version of a dictionary flame.

> I think that it is you who are playing word games by redefining things
> as you go along.

And I'm still using the same definition of a pointer that I was using when
I jumped in: a token (AKA opaque object AKA explicit reference) that
refers to an atomic value (AKA object AKA atom AKA primitive). I'm just
trying to find words to fit into those slots that don't blow your fuses.
Why don't you put the words that make your head feel happy in so we can go
on?

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

No, I'm pointing out that the C pointer model can be implemented without
the pointers being machine addresses. So "pointer==machine address" is not
a useful definition for a discussion of languages.

> In the context of compilers, a "token" is a (meaningless) unit of
> syntax.

Fine. I'm not talking about compilers.

The rest of your article is more dictionary flames. If you want to do that
then hit the 'r' key. If you want to go back to an operational definition of
a pointer so we can discuss what a pointerless language might be then hit
the 'f' key. If you really don't see what I'm getting at hit the 'n' key.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com