Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.lang.f77
Subject: Re: Converting FORTRAN to C
Message-ID: <6841@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 13:37:57 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6841
Posted: Wed Jan  2 13:37:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 01:08:38 EST
References: <435@ukma.UUCP> <103@physiol.OZ>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.lang.c:3644 net.lang.f77:201

> type_t array[ARRAYSIZE];
> ...
>     type_t *p;
>     for (p = array; p < &array[ARRAYSIZE]; p++)
> I get VERY ANGRY at compilers like Whitesmiths' (for VAX/VMS, at least) that
> get upset about this construct.

In that case, it sounds like Whitesmiths' compiler is broken.

Incidentally, Pascal doesn't have an address-of operator (&), so a comparison
to Pascal cannot be made.  Also, I haven't seen a Pascal compiler that forced
bounds checking on users whether they wanted it or not -- though I could imagine
that a tool for teaching first-year students would do so.  However, anyone who
criticizes the availability of such debugging tools (wimpish, etc.) should be
denied access to all debugging tools other than post-mortem dumps printed in
hex (or octal) on a line printer.  Sure, I've read OS dumps too, but debugging
takes an order of magnitude longer.

-- Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."