call to revolt

[Norman Diamond]

In article <31822 at hydra.gatech.EDU> roy at prism.gatech.EDU (Roy Mongiovi) writes:
>I fail to see why the following should be categorically outlawed:
>	char *intptr;
>	intptr = malloc(sizeof(int));
This is legal.

>	read(fd, intptr, sizeof(int));
This is also legal as far as the standard is concerned.  If you don't have
a prototype in scope, and size_t is not the same size of integer as read()
expects for its third parameter, then it could fail at execution time.

>	*((int *) intptr)++;

OK, if people want ++ to be applicable to non-lvalues, submit your suggestions
to the committee when they call for comments on C-2001 (the successor to
C-1989).  For all you people who enjoy doing:
    void f(int x) {
      x ++;
    }
    f(n);    /* Huh?  Why didn't the value of n get bumped? */
    f(3);    /* Huh?  Why didn't my 3 change to 4, like in the bad old
                 days of Fortran? */
OK, you should also be allowed to say
    (n + 13) ++;          /* Huh?  Why didn't n get bumped?  Or should
                              (n+13) have been bumped?  ?  */
    *((int *) intptr)++;  /* Huh?  Why didn't intptr get bumped? */
--
Norman Diamond       diamond at tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.