home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.primenet.com!not-for-mail
- From: mikeq@primenet.com (Michael Quinlan)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c
- Subject: Re: noalias in C9X?
- Date: 4 Jan 1996 07:46:00 -0700
- Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet
- Sender: root@primenet.com
- Message-ID: <4cgp78$rs6@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
- References: <4cfp2k$4gt@umbc9.umbc.edu>
- Reply-To: mikeq@primenet.com
- X-Posted-By: ip189.boi.primenet.com
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99a.107
-
- schlein@umbc.edu (Jonas J. Schlein) wrote:
-
- >Now that the CLC FAQ is in print and I have been able to (finally!) obtain
- >a copy, I have been reading it over carefully.
- >
- >In question 11.28 the 'noalias' qualifier was mentioned as being introduced
- >too late to make it into the standard. Also difficulty in giving it well
- >defined behavior stood as an obstacle.
- >
- >My question is whether or not this, or something similar will be in
- >a future standard?
-
- http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/ [Programming in C] has pointers to several
- C-related items, including Dennis Ritchie's comments on type qualifiers
- ("Noalias must go. This is non¡negotiable. It must not be reworded,
- reformulated or reinvented.")
-
- +--------------------------------------------+
- | Michael Quinlan |
- | mikeq@primenet.com |
- | http://www.primenet.com/~mikeq |
- | If it doesn't fit, you must acquit! |
- +--------------------------------------------+
-
-