brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (11/10/90)
In article <5498@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > From article <24487:Nov906:17:2490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein): > >> if the array > >> code were preprocessed into pointers (which you _did_ suggest should > >> be done). > > Did I really? Where? I certainly don't believe that all array code > > should be converted into pointer code. [ Jim quotes me: ] > : Jim, nothing in Nemesis that you've described to me requires any > : extensions to implement in C; [...] > : [...] The programmer can get all the greatness and > : glory of the Giles Gaggle, with whatever typechecking and constraints > : you want, with at most a C++-like preprocessor. Agreed? > If this doesn't imply converting all higher structures into pointers, > what does it mean? I am getting really, really, really sick of how you're twisting my statements, taking things out of context, and doing whatever else might be necessary to keep arguing. Others have posted similar opinions. There is NOTHING in the above quote that implies that arrays can or should be implemented in terms of pointers, even if that were possible. I was talking about ``recursive data structures,'' ``sequences,'' and all that other high-level crap that *can* be implemented on top of C. My point (which you still haven't acknowledged) is that since the Giles Gaggle can be implemented on top of C with whatever syntax you want, all consideration of whether the Gaggle is useful must be in terms of implementation efficiency. That has NOTHING to do with arrays. I believe that arrays should be a much more fundamental part of the language, and that pointers and arrays should be much more cleanly separated than they are in C. You know I hold this opinion. When it's convenient you observe that I think pointers and arrays are entirely different. Now it's convenient to say the opposite, so you do exactly that without a hint of remorse. I find your behavior absolutely disgusting. Sure, I often engage in some nasty rhetorical tricks, and I sometimes dodge the issue at hand; but I never pervert anyone's opinion, no matter how desperate I am to win an argument. And when I do realize that I've misinterpreted something, I'll say so. Maybe you should learn to do the same. ---Dan
jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (11/14/90)
From article <7101:Nov1008:51:4590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein): > [...] > I believe that arrays should be a much more fundamental part of the > language, and that pointers and arrays should be much more cleanly > separated than they are in C. You know I hold this opinion. [...] No, I _don't_ know that you hold this opinion. This is the first time you have explicitly stated it. I am pleased that you think this. In previous articles, I always held the features I support as a unified group (and you _seemed_ to attack them as such). When you make a statement about the features I support (that you collectively call the "Giles Gaggle"), I naturally assume that you are referring to _all_ of them. If you didn't want your statement to apply to arrays, you should have said so. I would still have disagreed, of course. I see no reason that arrays should be singled out as the only higher-level construct to be present and still inefficiently simulate all the others with pointers. All the "Giles Gaggle" can be simulated in arrays too (as most old Fortran programmers can tell you). I would not recommend preprocessing to either. > [...] > I find your behavior absolutely disgusting. Sure, I often engage in some > nasty rhetorical tricks, and I sometimes dodge the issue at hand; but I > never pervert anyone's opinion, no matter how desperate I am to win an > argument. And when I do realize that I've misinterpreted something, I'll > say so. Maybe you should learn to do the same. Since I could care less about "winning" an argument with you, your complaint is completely unfounded. However, if what you are _now_ claiming is correct, I'm perfectly willing to admit to previously misinterpreting you. I interpreted what you _actually_ wrote. It seems I have to do other than that. J. Giles
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (11/14/90)
In article <5811@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: > From article <7101:Nov1008:51:4590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein): > > I believe that arrays should be a much more fundamental part of the > > language, and that pointers and arrays should be much more cleanly > > separated than they are in C. You know I hold this opinion. [...] > No, I _don't_ know that you hold this opinion. You did say in one article something like ``in fact, it was quite clear that [some allusion to me] does not believe this.'' The belief you were referring to was the general belief that pointers somehow make arrays redundant. Then you suddenly turn about and accuse me of believing exactly the same thing. That's disgusting. > This is the first > time you have explicitly stated it. Outside of e-mail, perhaps, but I've implied it enough times. > In previous articles, I always held the features I support as > a unified group (and you _seemed_ to attack them as such). Sorry if it came across that way. By the ``Giles Gaggle'' I only mean the higher-level features: lists (you say ``sequences''), Lists (you say ``recursive data structures''), etc. Their common feature is that they can be implemented on top of structs, arrays, and pointers. It would be silly to have only two of the basic three, since the third cannot be implemented in terms of them. > When you > make a statement about the features I support (that you collectively > call the "Giles Gaggle"), I naturally assume that you are referring > to _all_ of them. You support function calls. Do you think I was attacking function calls? Obviously not. > I would still have disagreed, of course. I see no reason that arrays > should be singled out as the only higher-level construct to be present > and still inefficiently simulate all the others with pointers. Arrays are at the same level as pointers and structs. None of the features can be implemented in full generality in terms of the other features. Implementing pointers in terms of arrays, for instance, loses dynamic allocation. Implementing arrays in terms of the others loses memory space. And so on. ---Dan