From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 9051 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2020 13:52:52 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with UTF8ESMTPZ; 25 Apr 2020 13:52:52 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3E1F69C8EA; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:52:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744E99C749; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:52:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 89FA49C749; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:52:32 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 1037 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:52:31 AEST Received: from mout1.fh-giessen.de (mout1.fh-giessen.de [212.201.18.42]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B70129C733 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:52:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mx3.fh-giessen.de ([212.201.18.28]) by mout1.fh-giessen.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jSKxc-0005d7-SJ for tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:35:12 +0200 Received: from mailgate-2.its.fh-giessen.de ([212.201.18.14]) by mx3.fh-giessen.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jSKxc-005IAV-Oo for tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:35:12 +0200 Received: from p5deb57b4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.235.87.180] helo=papa2.fritz.box) by mailgate-2.its.fh-giessen.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jSKxc-0004s8-J4 for tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:35:12 +0200 Message-ID: <1587821712.2206.338.camel@mni.thm.de> From: Hellwig Geisse To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:35:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20200425131112.6E54F18C0B6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20200425131112.6E54F18C0B6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [TUHS] v7 K&R C X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Sa, 2020-04-25 at 09:11 -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote: >     > From: Rob Pike > >     > Convenient though the shorthand may be, it always bothered me as >     > inconsistent and misleading. > > As someone who made very extensive use of procedure pointers (most notably in > upcalls, which never caught on, alas), I couldn't agree more. > > Two very different things are happenging, but with the shorthand notation, > they share an identical representation. And for what? To save three characters? The subject can be looked at from another angle. Consider the call f(42). This might be read as first naming f (and thus constructing a pointer to f) and then calling the function which the pointer is pointing to. So at least it should be possible to write the call as (*f)(42), which indeed is equivalent to f(42). So it can be argued that this notational shorthand should be allowed with all function pointers. Hellwig