home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
- From: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: PPC compilers
- Date: 10 Jan 1996 23:44:41 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4d1fgp$cuv@serpens.rhein.de>
- References: <john.hendrikx.40ka@grafix.xs4all.nl> <jasonb.820051107@cs.uwa.edu.au> <VBzVx*M3f@yaps.rhein.de> <4d0tf0$i4i@maureen.teleport.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- sschaem@teleport.com (Stephan Schaem) writes:
-
- > It was about: "C is better because you dont need to know your variable type"
-
- Maybe that's what you think it is about. It was NOT the topic
- of the discussion.
-
- > I dont rememner reading clock_t was a type of type ulong...
-
- That's the point. You don't read it, you don't even _care_.
- That's what definining a type clock_t is all about. You
- as the programmer just use it. The exact definition is hidden.
-
- > you might not care clockt_t went from 32bit long to a 64bit long,
- > but I you would if it become a 32digit bcpl.
-
- I suggest that you start thinking. Even the type clock_t has
- _some_ properties (like being an integral type).
-
- > No matter what strnage encoding... how about a pointer to a string?
-
- This would violate the properties of type clock_t.
-
- > There is limit on C operator and type.
-
- Obviously there is, but this was not the topic of this discussion.
-
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-