3 ms·

Pointer variables in C are declared in an odd way, as `int (a)` rather than `(int) a`. I suspect this is also due to B's legacy. In B everything was an integ

by pornel 5y ago

Pointer variables in C are declared in an odd way, as `int (*a)` rather than `(int*) a`. I suspect this is also due to B's legacy. In B everything was an integer, and there was no separate pointer type. It had only pointer operators that could be applied to any integer.

veltas 5y ago
Declarators (the name along with pointer, array, etc annotations) in C are written parallel to how they are used, I have always assumed this was to make defining/explaining the language simpler (even though it often defies new learner's expectations), and maybe to reduce the amount of required logic in the compiler. I think you're right that B is related to this, the reason the brackets were on the right of the name is because no type was mentioned in B (as there was only one type). If types had been named in declarations they probably would have preferred to do what Java does, i.e. `Type[] name`. The other more archaic reason the brackets are on the right is because in the oldest B compilers the brackets were not there at all, instead when declaring 'local' (auto) vectors you just write the length of the vector after its name, like `auto name 8;` would declare a vector length 8 called 'name'. Once again this syntax makes sense without the type. In B, declarators had not really matured yet, in some situations you could declare a vector with brackets similar to C arrays, but only of one dimension (which I think is why they were called vectors and not arrays).
- int_19h 5y ago
  One thing that I've noticed when digging into historical programming languages of that time period, is that many of them didn't really treat arrays as a type, but rather as some kind of variable modifier - and then putting the brackets after the variable name makes perfect sense. Notably, Algol-60, the granddaddy of all the C-like languages, already had this syntax: begin integer x[1:42]; ... end

Pointer variables in C are declared in an odd way, as `int (*a)` rather than `(int*) a`. I suspect this is also due to B's legacy. In B everything was an integ

by pornel 5y ago

veltas 5y ago

Declarators (the name along with pointer, array, etc annotations) in C are written parallel to how they are used, I have always assumed this was to make defining/explaining the language simpler (even though it often defies new learner's expectations), and maybe to reduce the amount of required logic in the compiler. I think you're right that B is related to this, the reason the brackets were on the right of the name is because no type was mentioned in B (as there was only one type). If types had been named in declarations they probably would have preferred to do what Java does, i.e. `Type[] name`. The other more archaic reason the brackets are on the right is because in the oldest B compilers the brackets were not there at all, instead when declaring 'local' (auto) vectors you just write the length of the vector after its name, like `auto name 8;` would declare a vector length 8 called 'name'. Once again this syntax makes sense without the type. In B, declarators had not really matured yet, in some situations you could declare a vector with brackets similar to C arrays, but only of one dimension (which I think is why they were called vectors and not arrays).

int_19h 5y ago
One thing that I've noticed when digging into historical programming languages of that time period, is that many of them didn't really treat arrays as a type, but rather as some kind of variable modifier - and then putting the brackets after the variable name makes perfect sense. Notably, Algol-60, the granddaddy of all the C-like languages, already had this syntax: begin integer x[1:42]; ... end