> HA, if C lent itself to readability then the * for pointer stuff would not be
> used like it is.
>
> I'd like to see a C like this:
>
> ptr int this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int ;
>
> ptr char char-pointer ;
>
> It is kind of backwards trying to define a pointer variable name in terms of
> what it points to:
>
> int *this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int ;
>
> This is saying that the variable, whose type *really* isn't explicitly stated,
> "this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int" when dereferenced gives you an int, so thus by
> inference, this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int *must* be a pointer to an int. Now that
> is BACKWARDS IMHO!
>
> And NO, C++, and Java are *not* the answer!
>
> We just need to come up with a C-2, "C the next generation" language.
>
> That's my 2c,
ok, heres my 2c if thats what you want, then why not
make up your own header file "c-2.h" or whatever... and
stick in something like this...
typedef int *ptr_int;
typedef char *ptr_char;
than you can say:
ptr_int this-is-a-pointer-to-an-int;
ptr_char char-pointer;
so much for my 2c...
>
> Brock
>
> --
> /---------------------------/--------------------------------------------------\
> | R. Brock Lynn / http://www.linux.org/ http://www.rbl.dyn.ml.org/ |
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation! |
> \---------------------/--------------------------------------------------------/
>
--
Matt Riben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP: send me an email with the subject "get pgpkey".
DSS: 1024/0xE4154CAB/C4CE DD26 61C8 F25F 479E 73A0 1F1F 5C36 E415 4CAB
D-H: 4096/0x56E48DD1/B8D3 F543 2A08 A545 9EE6 A8A5 5642 0F28 56E4 8DD1
