🚀 go-pugleaf

diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com ("diamond@tkovoa") writes:
>Subject: Re: parameter type matching (was Re: the SUN way)
> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>>diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com ("diamond@tkovoa") writes:
>>>Here in pseudo-C syntax:
>>>  typeof(x) *bsearch(const any (*x)[], const typeof(x) *,
>>>                     unsigned, unsigned,
>>>                     int(*)(const typeof(x) *, const typeof(x) *));
>>How about:
>> typeof(x) *bsearch(const any (*x)[], const oftype(x) *,
>>                    unsigned, unsigned,
>>                    int(*)(const oftype(x) *, const oftype(x) *));
> 
>My understanding was that gcc calls it typeof.  (Though gcc's construct
>is not powerful enough to back up from the parameter declaration to the
>function return type.  The 1989 Extended Pascal standard can do it because
>function return types come after the parameter declarations.)
> 
>I don't care if you want to call it oftype instead of typeof.
>But you missed one.
>> typeof(x) *bsearch(const any (*x)[], const oftype(x) *,
>  oftype
> 
>>Also, looking at it, I would assume that "x" is of type "pointer to
>>function", and so question the "*"s within the prototype of bsearch;
>>i.e., it is hard to understand to what, and with what stopping point,
>>your typing has tied x.
> 
>Huh?  I said, and you correctly quoted my saying, what x was:
>>> Notice that the first parameter names the prototype-scoped identifier
>>> x, whose type is invoked in other parts of this prototype. If the
>>> programmer wanted to name other parameters and copy their types as
>>> well, it could also be done.
>  oftype(x) *bsearch(const any (*x)[], const oftype(x) *,
>                             ----^----
>In this example, x has type (const any *).  [Hmm, the oftype (or whatever)
>construct will have to be given additional capability to remove "const"
>when necessary.]

I think I'd better bow out of this discussion, after having you misunderstand
me and then Chip misquote me.

My primary point was that "typeof" is an operator capturing a type and
assigning it a name, in this case "x".  That functionality should not
be confounded with the operator which returns, give a name, here "x",
the type information to be used by the compiler for a cast or prototype.

I was thus explicitly trying to suggest that two _different_ names be
used for these two different functions, rather than forcing the compiler
to guess the functionality intended from context, and the human reader
to find the enclosing context to see which use is being employed.

My second, separate point, was that "typeof" was being used to capture the
type of a _pointer_to_ function, and should capture the "pointerness" of
the type, and thus the "*"s in the body of the bsearch prototype should be
redundant.

Then again, it is more than possible, considering the responses, that I
have misunderstood the issues completely, which is why I wish no longer
to continue adding confusion to the discussion.

Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>