When it is amoral... (Re: When is a cast not a cast?)
Blair P. Houghton
bph at buengc.BU.EDU
Tue May 9 07:04:12 AEST 1989
In article <5779 at xyzzy.UUCP> throopw at bert.dg.com (Wayne A. Throop) enscreeds:
>> bph at buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
>> Thanks to all who pushed me upright.
Yeah, thanks for the whiplash... ( ;-) just kidding :-) )
>The point is, Blair expects an object defined as one type to behave both
>as if it were a pointer and an offset at the same time. This is NOT sensible.
Nay, I want it to behave as an object, and not as some nebulous changeling
requiring maintenance-by-fiat. If one is yea-big and the other is yo-big,
then I damn well want the difference between them to be yea-yo, at the
very least when I _tell_ it to be so.
It's sensible aplenty. The only question is: does it add sufficient
functionality to justify the trouble it allows? That there's a question
for the more scientific amongst this gaggle of Computo-Scientists.
>If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which coult not
>possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
>my theory would absolutely break down.
Interesting logic in there: "If it could...then...would absolutely"
It implies that it must be that "it" could not; since therefore the theory
would break down absolutely, and since the theory doesn't, then therefore
"it" couldn't "be demonstrated".
Good. That saves me a lot of time trying to demonstrate it.
> --- Charles Darwin
I get flamed by the most impressive people...
--Blair
"Speaking of fiat..."
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list