Re: Language design question

I just want to point something which does't seem that much an obvious
thing to me.


Mr Flisakowski proposed the following example:


> type TRec = struct
> {
> a: short;
> }
>
> var p: pointer to pointer to pointer to TRec;
> var r: pointer to TRec;
>
> p = r; // Ok, equiv to: **p = r
> r = p; // Ok, equiv to r = **p


Why should (p = r) be equivalent to < **p = r >
instead of < ***p = *r > ?


I think that in an auto-dereferencing language, dereferencing should
go to the maximum level by default. Then you may use a referencing
operator to monitor this *maximum* level. In this way, < **p =r >
would be coded like (&p = &r).


Auto-dereferencing sounds a nice feature to me. It hides the deepness
of the referencing chain to the programmer and thus agrees with the
information hiding principle.


Frederic Guerin

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.