🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov12.203014.11596@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
>If the only things you can do with a pointer are to dereference it,
>pass it as a procedure argument, or assign it from another of the same
>type, then you never needed the pointer to begin with.  What you needed 
>was for the data type to which it points to be a first-class type.  

>Dr. Rubin's use of pointers to functions is exactly of that form.
>He can do nothing with them except dereference, pass, or assign them.
>He would actually get *greater* capability if the language he used
>allowed `function' to be a first-class data type with assignment,
>partial application (currying), and composition as it's defined
>operations.

Even if you have the greater capablility, do you have to insist on
making things complicated by using it?  I use pointers both for 
functions and for descriptors.  I use pointers to get a more powerful
version of COMMON blocks.  I use pointers because any non-brain-damaged
machine uses them.  In fact, Fortran (at least up to F77) uses only
pointers, but all pointers are fixed!
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)