Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: New section 3.9.6 Message-ID: <9114@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 9 Dec 88 07:24:20 GMT References: <1988Dec4.161125.20786@sq.uucp> <1988Dec5.220907.6239@utzoo.uucp> <11126@haddock.ima.isc.com> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 16 In article <11126@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes: >IMHO, The Committee should have made the entire construct `f(int x[])' >obsolescent. This would still allow the Darnell notation$ to be added to a >future Standard, if that turns out to be the Right Thing, but it would also >allow for more ambitious undertakings%. I think the reason there wasn't sufficient support for that more drastic step was that a LOT of correctly-written code exists that uses that notation. Only a small fraction of it would be invalidated were Darnell's semantics to be implemented, but all of it would be invalidated if support for the notation were completely dropped. There are proposals for future addition of array sections etc. to C, but it would be premature to adopt them into the standard before there is sufficient experience with them. I expect several vendors to be working on this as vendor-supported extensions in the next few years.