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 31532 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2020 06:41:53 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with UTF8ESMTPZ; 26 Apr 2020 06:41:53 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 269C79C84C; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 16:41:50 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29189B962; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 16:41:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 317A69B962; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 16:41:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 721869B934 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 16:41:05 +1000 (AEST) X-Envelope-From: arnold@skeeve.com Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60]) by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 03Q6f0C2006247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:41:00 -0600 Received: (from arnold@localhost) by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 03Q6ewui006245; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:40:58 -0600 From: arnold@skeeve.com Message-Id: <202004260640.03Q6ewui006245@freefriends.org> X-Authentication-Warning: frenzy.freefriends.org: arnold set sender to arnold@skeeve.com using -f Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:40:58 -0600 To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org, hellwig.geisse@mni.thm.de, blstuart@bellsouth.net References: <20200425131112.6E54F18C0B6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <1587821712.2206.338.camel@mni.thm.de> <2050076633.160857.1587841270567@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <2050076633.160857.1587841270567@mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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" "Brian L. Stuart" wrote: > On Saturday, April 25, 2020, 09:52:45 AM EDT, Hellwig Geisse wrote: > > On Sa, 2020-04-25 at 09:11 -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > > 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. > > This is the way that I've taken to looking at it for the > last 10 years or so. In fact, I see it as the same thing > as an array. Specifically, I've taken to thinking of [] > as a postfix indexing operator and () as a postfix > calling operator, and the thing on the left is a pointer > in both cases. > > BLS > Algol 68 had a concept "deproceduring" similar to "dereferencing". If you think of foo(arg) where plain "foo" is a pointer to a function and adding the parentheses does the call, then it's the same with a procedure name or with a function pointer. This is pretty much what BLS said. Thinking of [] and () as operators is explicit in C++ (for good and for ill). Arnold