Related articles |
---|
pointer elimination in C miller@crx.ece.cmu.edu (Karen Miller) (1993-10-05) |
Re:pointer elimination in C ghiya@flo.cs.mcgill.ca (1993-10-06) |
Re: pointer elimination in C donawa@bluebeard.cs.mcgill.ca (Chris DONAWA) (1993-10-10) |
Re: pointer elimination in C doug@netcom.com (1993-10-19) |
Re: pointer elimination in C pop@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Robin Popplestone) (1993-10-22) |
Re: pointer elimination in C macrakis@osf.org (1993-10-22) |
Re: pointer elimination in C henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-10-22) |
Re: C ++ and -- hammondr@sungod.crd.ge.com (1993-10-22) |
Re: pointer elimination in C mcdonald@kestrel.edu (1993-10-28) |
Re: pointer elimination in C ted@crl.nmsu.edu (1993-10-29) |
Re: pointer elimination in C rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (1993-11-01) |
[2 later articles] |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | Robin Popplestone <pop@dcs.gla.ac.uk> |
Keywords: | C, analysis, question |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 93-10-032 |
Date: | Fri, 22 Oct 1993 08:23:56 GMT |
Karen Miller <miller@crx.ece.cmu.edu> writes:
>I am translating C into another language which does not implement pointers.
I would be interested to know what that language is - any serious language
-does- in effect provide pointers, but restricts the operations you can do
on them in the interests of hygene. LISP for example, provides almost
nothing but pointers - typically only short integers and possibly short
floats will not be pointers. Some languages (e.g. Pascal) separate the
notion of call-by-reference from that of pointers proper, with the idea of
limiting the ways in which a pointer can become invalid.
C was, as they would say in Congress, -very unique- in providing pointer
arithmetic. This simply reflected the fact that good compilers had to be
shoehorned into a tiny computer, the DEC-11, and there was a simple
one-to-one mapping between something like *x++ and one machine
instruction.
Robin Popplestone.
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.