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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 17434 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2020 14:58:31 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with UTF8ESMTPZ; 25 Apr 2020 14:58:31 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C351D9C925; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:58:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2A29C749; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:58:06 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="nD7qchSq"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 19DDD9C749; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:58:04 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f180.google.com (mail-qt1-f180.google.com [209.85.160.180]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B6519C733 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 00:58:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f180.google.com with SMTP id b1so6825512qtt.1 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 07:58:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IZTWxMBG8H83PJhyPeSvlL/75U8SfxIYdU9kJ2pEtcs=; b=nD7qchSq/vcDuM7sMpcV+L1ccfPmDzb6CAvZB4NBN2ZsX2S9nbL4bhTXcgYRL3MMtJ 8EyUtsfgZeyBaa7vyHFOeOYzPiHxWgHfVNMnreYjiyJA2TBRWhL5kC2jPoqihINCwnxO JTETcixS/PmPPHR/ObcJ+nfv92lqnekQhfteOW9ijWQdxWYxr5+0qbq3xi1pYhVA4Pz8 AY038qYCoN97zC0iNzpJfpjI0OmvrW5KCvqsB4PgxD2l2Of4oLGHmuJ1l4/rDkoSpsdK gEqkSD8w4qVT4ulgo6nBl4uE2QL29RTOMeKZsaQEB33OMaqZPvSVK0y4hLbNu0+FtZUK 3ynw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IZTWxMBG8H83PJhyPeSvlL/75U8SfxIYdU9kJ2pEtcs=; b=R1dTQtgNOEabgw5UtQRJGr++nZEZdGLLCXxz/Lpfw3WcmOwM5U5Ish+Af5WrPigLHe EgK8wWD5kVGBTk5suTjulP1h6knzkt/19V/vfw+rFhngNXFwLQS9cMnrwK/aBNILuBS/ wrAi8mMp+3a/8E6qMDHQ/XXQZRdMt+CgQLINBx04uBoSwhgLpzU5kUV5iU5yC7v573F0 m1yrvGH6b7lBsAxNWUulfOrLlHJgRLLjBacEEU1tgjv6Zd4gpBKKGexn4hMc98XkJVuO 7MglQarGcB3RVvu5k2DEVrtx+AUubzmUEW2v/PAKoLm6fSorG1cSt7ur9W4GsoJi/XeF EWEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYzAuaopupAPfUjQLAq0YSrVxNrb6vXwld6AYmpAMtOpX8aH7YZ +x7kB81O7njBMg1U+U0r1SN2CCQuq8HL2/aFrtRD9tNieRY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKBi7dqItrZKQtT7M+WY1o7RFjQdz2pyBGaCWOII2O9/k1HALdnA37VroKRJFIsxa4XhHtsQUAH1O9QF2o+lTI= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3844:: with SMTP id r4mr14342499qtb.32.1587826682521; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 07:58:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200425131112.6E54F18C0B6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:57:50 -0600 Message-ID: To: Rob Pike Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000060859105a41eb568" 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: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society , Noel Chiappa Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000060859105a41eb568 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 7:18 AM Rob Pike wrote: > To make chaining of calls simpler. Write > > f()->g()->h()->i() > > the other way and you'll see why Bjarne asked for the shorthand. > Yea. The other way looks way too lispy... Warner -rob > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:12 PM 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? >> >> Noel >> >> --00000000000060859105a41eb568 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat, Apr 25, 2020, 7:18 AM Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:
To make chaining of calls simpler.= Write

f()->g()->h()->i()

<= div>the other way and you'll see why Bjarne asked for the shorthand.

Yea. The other way looks way too lispy...=C2=A0

Warner=C2=A0

=
-rob


On Sat, Apr 25, = 2020 at 11:12 PM Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrot= e:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0= > From: Rob Pike

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > Convenient though the shorthand may be, it always bother= ed me as
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > 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,<= br> they share an identical representation. And for what? To save three charact= ers?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Noel

--00000000000060859105a41eb568--