Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #1932Re: Answers, Chapter 1: TeX (was C's sins... and others)
From: Jim Giles
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 1990 19:40
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 1990 19:40
19 lines
1304 bytes
1304 bytes
From article <1845:Nov607:02:2390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein): > In article <3681@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >> [... pointers not reliable across segments ...] > > This statement is unjustified. It is, in fact, false. I am told that at > least one C IBM PC memory manager keeps track of memory separately in > each segment. Exactly my point, pointers are presumably being used _within_ segments, but they are not adequate for writing the _whole_ memory manager - something else must be in use to track the segments. However, you are missing my point here. In this one particular case I actually _support_ the use of pointers (or some form of unbounded address arithmetic). I oppose the above mentioned ANSI C constraint on pointers because the ability to do unbounded address calculations was the only use I thought they were fit for. J. Giles
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<5074@lanl.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!jlgReferences:
<1845:Nov607:02:2390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Answers, Chapter 1: TeX (was C's sins... and others) Message-ID: <5074@lanl.gov> Date: 6 Nov 90 19:40:33 GMT References: <1845:Nov607:02:2390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M. Lines: 19