From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: <3D34F176.53D8BD00@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: Subject: Re: [9fans] useful language extension, or no? Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:59:04 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cf22d786-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote: > in the case of Lock, it's easy to see that we could do without: > just requires > lock(&t->l); > instead of > lock(t); > as in Plan 9. > the advantage of the latter, however, is that it is clear and readable, > not that it saves typing. Indeed, when I was trying to track down a bug in floppy booting (with mixed drive types), I wasted some time thinking I had found the bug in one such instance, having temporarily forgotten about that Plan 9 C extension. I personally prefer the &t->l as saying exactly what is meant, instead of invoking some behind-the-scene mapping. But I think it was an interesting experiment anyway.