Related articles |
---|
[13 earlier articles] |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? boehm@parc.xerox.com (1994-06-28) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (1994-06-29) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? nandu@cs.clemson.edu (1994-06-29) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? Theo.Norvell@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (1994-06-30) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? guerin@IRO.UMontreal.CA (1994-06-30) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? synaptx!thymus!daveg@uunet.uu.net (Dave Gillespie) (1994-06-30) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? nickh@harlequin.co.uk (1994-07-01) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? mps@dent.uchicago.edu (1994-07-05) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | nickh@harlequin.co.uk (Nick Haines) |
Keywords: | C, Pascal, design |
Organization: | Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England |
References: | 94-06-175 94-06-225 |
Date: | Fri, 1 Jul 1994 10:04:49 GMT |
andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk (Andrew Dinn) writes:
Pascal merely differs from C in two respects: i) it requires the length of
strings/byte arrays to be fixed at compile time ii) there is no library of
string functions based around the *convention* that the interesting bytes
are the ones which come before the NUL. The limitation which Pascal
suffers and C does not is the former.
I agree wrt Pascal, but this dumb restriction does not apply to all
languages which use length-attributed strings. The use of string0 in
the C library has left some of us with no alternative but to rewrite
chunks of the library, just so we can include all valid characters
(including NUL) in a character string.
Nick Haines nickh@harlequin.co.uk
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.