2 ms·
> C is allergic to fat pointers for reasons I don't understand I do understand not making "some_type *" a fat pointer, since that makes it difficult to interfa
by eqvinox 3y ago
> C is allergic to fat pointers for reasons I don't understand
I do understand not making "some_type *" a fat pointer, since that makes it difficult to interface with another language's fat pointers.
On a library/API level lots of libraries use fat pointers of various incompatible kinds. The best thing C could IMHO do is add a fat pointer variant to the ISO C standard library functions, plus syntactic sugar. Unfortunately this chafes against "conservative" inertia :(
- sirwhinesalot 3y agoNobody wanted to make "some_type *" a fat pointer, everyone wanted a new syntax. Maybe it was an issue of constant bikeshedding on what exactly that syntax should have been? I like Walter Bright's proposal of "some_type[..]".