From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] useful language extension, or no? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:59:50 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cdcb5836-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 You're going to have to do better than that. Simply pulling the 'ole "I'm overly negative and as a result most people avoid confrontation with me" isn't going to cut it. Anyone else have an opinion on this ... specifically the guys/gals at the labs, since without their consent tool changes doubtfully become realised? Sam On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, rob pike, esq. wrote: > > What about the promotion of a structure from itself > > to one of its members in a function call simply because > > it makes locking a structure easier? Surely passing in > > a pointer to a function and having the in-func pointer completely > > different violates some standard of programming languages. > > It's called inheritance. > > > Why was it worthwhile to change the language in this respect, > > for the idiom of "always having to make sure the lock is the > > first item in the structure for pointer coersion is a pain?" > > Yes. > > -rob >