On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:11 AM Allan Sandfeld Jensen <li...@carewolf.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 16 December 2019 14:51:38 CET J Decker wrote: > > Here's the gist of what I would propose... > > https://gist.github.com/d3x0r/f496d0032476ed8b6f980f7ed31280da > > > > In C, there are two operators . and -> used to access members of struct > and > > union types. These operators are specified such that they are always > paired > > in usage; for example, if the left hand expression is a pointer to a > struct > > or union, then the operator -> MUST be used. There is no occasion where . > > and -> may be interchanged, given the existing specification. > > > > It should be very evident to the compiler whether the token before '.' or > > '->' is a pointer to a struct/union or a struct/union, and just build the > > appropriate output. > > > > The source modification for the compiler is very slight, even depending > on > > flag_c2x(that's not it's name). It ends up changing a lot of existing > > lines, just to change their indentation; but that shouldn't really count > > against 'changed lines'. > > > > I'm sure, after 4 score and some years ('78-19) that it must surely have > > come up before? Anyone able to point me to those existing proposals? > > > What if you operate on a pointer to a pointer to a struct? Should the same > operator just magically dereference everything until it is a struct? > > how does pointer to a pointer to a struct work now? Does it somehow involve ppStruct->->a ? > I disagree with this proposal because separate a thing and a pointer to a > thing is fundamental to C/C++, and providing short-cuts that confuse the > two > is doing a disservice to anyone that needs to learn it. > > It's not to the assembly though. To me, it's not a matter of it being a shorthand, but to make JS code more portable back to C (and C++ compiled C). > Besides isn't this the wrong mailing list for this? > > Probably? I thought it a better starting point than the bug list? Where would you suggest I go? It doesn't look like C standards, unlike es-discuss for ecma script, I couldn't find a open forum to discuss such things... or even a github group like... https://github.com/tc39/proposals J > 'Allan > > >
