On May 7, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm not familiar with your C++ example (not being familiar with C++),
but I think that it's a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say
that C "introduces a variable of type "array of 50 ints"", the fact
that this is now an array of 50 integers is never checked at any
point in the compilation or run, and I'm not sure it can be even if
K&R had wanted to.
The size is taken into account when such array type is an element of
another array, and by sizeof.
int (*p)[50]; /* p may legally point only to arrays of 50 ints each */
++p; /* p is assumed to point into an array, and is moved by one
element, i.e. by 50 ints */
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by saying that... There is
still no type information that says that the contents of p are an
array of 50 elements... I can still attempt to access element 51 and
get a runtime memory error. The type of p is still int**, not
"pointer to array of 50 ints"
As an example:
int bobsArray[5];
bobsArray[6] = 23;
is not badly typed - it is merely a badly broken program.
Because the array size is not taken into account by indexing. But it's
a part of the type. These issues are independent, for example in C#
both are the opposite.
I don't think it is part of the type... Does the compiler ever know
any more about the type of bobsArray other than it's a pointer to an
integer? I think that the above code can be directly translated to:
int *bobsArray;
bobsArray = (int *)malloc(5 * sizeof(int));
bobsArray[6] = 23
Which stores exactly the same about on type information.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
