🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cuX5VB1w164w@amfent.Gwinnett.COM> amf@amfent.Gwinnett.COM (Andy Feibus) writes:
>diamond@jit345.bad.jit.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:
>>In article <wwJXVB3w164w@amfent.Gwinnett.COM> amf@amfent.Gwinnett.COM (Andy F
>>>jamesc@swapsdev.state.state.COM.AU (James Cribb) writes:
>>>>do the C or C++ standards guarantee that &ps[k] ==  [...]
>>>the answer is... no.
>>He was asking about the standards [...] the answer is... yes.

>he also asked:
>>>>is it portable?
>And that was the question I answered.
>>>Different compilers see &ps[k] differently; use parentheses to clarify:
>>> &(ps[k]).
>>Even K&R-1 and Stroustrop-1 prohibited seeing this expression differently.

>That's nice in theory, but I've found at least one UNIX-based compiler 
>that interprets it differently.  Since his question was about portability,

OK, you found at least one UNIX-based compiler for a non-C language.
I've found various compilers with various bugs too.  If you assert that
portability means porting to broken compilers, then there is no such thing
as a portable program.  Zero.  Zilch.  I think the original poster was
asking about portability among standard conforming implementations.  In
fact, even among pre-standard implementations of the C and C++ languages,
portability was there.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@jit081.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
"It's been a lovely recession."