home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin
- From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
- Subject: Re: Pointers
- Message-ID: <Bxnqv5.J71@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
- Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (USENET News)
- Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
- References: <1992Nov5.014143.15635@newshost.lanl.gov> <id.6HVU.OC@ferranti.com> <1992Nov12.200950.8846@newshost.lanl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:59:28 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1992Nov12.200950.8846@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
-
- .......................
-
- >C.A.R. Hoare proved that the concepts of pointers and GOTOs are
- >*isomorphic* - which is a lot stronger than a mere analogy. The
- >consequence of this observation is that *any* valid argument against
- >GOTOs is equally valid against pointers. Period. As I keep saying,
- >you cannot do any coding at all without GOTOs, it's just that most
- >of the ones you use are hidden under an interface (IF/ELSE, DO/ENDDO,
- >SELECT/CASE, procedure calls, etc.) which capture the *specific* semantics
- >of the flow control the user has in mind. The same kinds of interfaces
- >need to be designed and applied to data structures to eliminate *raw*
- >pointer instances.
-
- Why do some people find it necessary to hide simple devices under
- interfaces? The insistence on the use of these interfaces is like
- the joke about the mathematician who pours the water out of the bucket
- and turns off the stove to reduce the problem to the previous case.
-
-
- --
- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
- Phone: (317)494-6054
- hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
- {purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
-