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."