From: ········@bayou.uh.edu
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <5mie9t$6em$6@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
Peter da Silva (·····@nmti.com) wrote:
: In article <··············@g.pet.cam.ac.uk>,
[Snip]
: Depending on the definition of "pointer", sure.
This has been covered several articles back -- do your homework.
: Look, let's put this in a wee bit of context.
It's been put in context already -- check the above.
: The message that spawned this side-thread said something like "the only
: problem with C pointers is that they support arithmetic, what if all you
: could do was allocate and dereference them?". And, presumably, assign
: them... otherwise there's nothing to dereference.
: So this guy at UH said he didn't even want pointers that did that much, and
: pointed to scheme as a pointerless language.
Again, if you read the threads thoroughly, you would know by now
that this was discussed with an emphasis on interface. GC, no
annoying "pointer vs. value" syntax, etc...
: The point I'm trying to make is, that if you take out the arithmetic, but
: still call what's left a "pointer", then scheme does have pointers. Now you
: can argue that what's left isn't really a pointer any more. That's quite
: legitimate, but then it's sort of hard to understand the original objection,
: because they're not pointers when they're embedded in C either.
But in C they do have arithmetic properties so your statement is
quite pointless.
: > Er. It seems like "a while" means "since the days of Lisp 1.5, or
: > earlier"; or is this a troll?
: Is Lisp 1.5 still lisp?
It depends on your definition of "Lisp". Maybe we could squabble
over this a while to make you realize just how pointless your
quibbles are.
: > Common Lisp provides arrays, hash tables, characters, strings,
: > I/O streams, conditions, closures, classes, and so on and
: > on and on.
: But those things don't define what Lisp is. They're elaborations. Lisp, at
: the bottom level, is the list. The ability to express programs and data in
: the same format, and manipulate it using list operations, is what really
: defines a language as being part of the lisp family.
Interface vs. Implementation. See pointers. Re-read passage.
: > HIBT?
: No. I'm simply ignoring a lot of irrelevant issues that, while they make the
: language more efficient and convenient, don't change its essential nature.
That would depend on what you consider "its essential nature" to be now
wouldn't it?
: --
: The Reverend Peter da Silva, ULC, COQO, BOFH, 3D0G, KIBO, POPE Ziggy Wotzit II.
: Har du kramat din varg, idag? `-_-' Kulanu Kibo.
: Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia! Vi er alle Kibo.
: HEIL KIBO! HEIL KIBO! HEIL KIBO! Wir sind alle Kibo.
--
Cya,
Ahmed
Momma, where's your little daughter?
She's here, right here on the altar.
You should never have opened that door,
Now you're never gonna see her no more.
"You Should Never Have Opened that Door" by the Ramones