Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: array[-1] -- permitted? Message-ID: <1988Sep19.164701.11136@ateng.uucp> Date: 19 Sep 88 20:47:01 GMT References: <867@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <3200@geac.UUCP> <1430@ficc.uu.net> <1988Sep15.145026.20325@ateng.uucp> <16041@ism780c.isc.com> Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 20 According to news@ism780c.isc.com: >But consider what might have happened had dpANS mandated that the compution >of a pointer to x[-1] be a valid operation. Okay, let's imagine: X3J11 says that x[-1] must be valid. then: int must be 32 bits. then: address space must be linear. etc. until only the SPARC is conforming. (no smileys here) Each time you make a "beneficial" restriction, you're condemning present users of real, useful computers to the purgatory of enforced non- conformance. I don't think anyone really wants X3J11 to make decisions about which hardware will be permitted to run C programs. In addition, it should be observed that on this issue, X3J11 stuck to its charter and codified existing practice. -- Chip Salzenbergor A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. The urgent leaves no time for the important.