From: Peter da Silva
Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)
Date:
Message-ID: <5mijin$jfa@web.nmti.com>
In article <············@masala.cc.uh.edu>,
········@bayou.uh.edu <········@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote:
> A language without hash tables isn't necessarily a lisp. C doesn't
> have hash tables, yet by your logic it is a lisp.
Where did I say that? C doesn't have... and can't have... lisp lists as
part of the language. You'd have to implement lisp in C to change that,
and the result of that would definitely be lisp. But it wouldn't be C.
> Semantics has nothing to do with it. My arguments were not with
> respect to semantics, and if you had bothered to pay attention
> you would know this.
I know your arguments aren't concerned with semantics. That's the problem.
Because, you see, the message you were following up to *was* concerned with
semantics.
Never mind. I've pointed that out enough times. Just call me a language
nazi or something and kill the thread.
> Pointers as defined in a previous thread which you obviously didn't
> read.
Since you missed the point of the original message that asked "what if C
pointers didn't do arithmetic", and you said you still didn't want them,
and that scheme doesn't have pointers... who is it that missed what point?
Take away the pointer arithmetic and associated backdoors, and the only
difference left is memory allocation policy.
--
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.