Why did people think otherwise? Chapter 5 of K&R [1] is titled Pointers and Arrays and basically explains that arrays and pointers are equivalent. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Brian-W-Kernigha...
[deleted]
A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
81–90 of 176 posts
Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I will now duck and get far away from the internet, in fear of all the hateful comments explaining to me how I am wrong, and apparently just don't understand the superior beauty of complicated C syntax. I am going to be that person :-) One phrase – "declarations mirror use". In a declaration, you use the same set of operators around the declared object that you would use in a normal expression. All of these operato…
I don't know if "declarations mirror use" gets you all the way there. You can use: *some_index[arr] (though obviously not saying you should ), but you can't declare: char *5[arr]; Obviously there's good reasons for that, but then you have "declarations mirror use, except when there's good reason not to", which basically brings you back to the original question.
Finding an exception doesn't invalidate the explanation. Being able to switch the index and array is more an accident of how C implements arrays than an actual use case.
Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#83Why did people think otherwise? Chapter 5 of K&R [1] is titled Pointers and Arrays and basically explains that arrays and pointers are equivalent. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Brian-W-Kernigha...
The point of the article is that sometimes they're not equivalent, and that creates a lot of confusion. Please read it before commenting on it.
Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This applies to all languages. Sure, but it's common for C programmers to think C is a low-level language with concepts that map straightforwardly to the target machine. You can't simultaneously think that C is a low-level language "close to the machine" and that your program can be freely rewritten into an eldritch horror. That's the only reason it would be a good "lie". Contrast that with something like Perl, whe…
C programmers are not thinking that C is low level language. ;-) Assembler language is low-level language, because it is not portable between architectures. C is high-level language, because it's portable. It's means that one C language statement can be translated into many statements of assembler language, hence C has higher level of abstraction than assembler language.
C is low level for everyone using a programming language other than C (excluding assembly). That even applies to languages created in the early 60s, prior to C.
Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#85The equivalent in C# always made more sense to me (not comparing memory or allocation model between the languages, but simply syntax in relation to a person reading it): int[] arr = new int[5]; // C# int arr[5]; // C The fact that the brackets go on the datatype always made more sense to me, after all, I want to refer to memory of a certain cell size (as indicated by int). I realize that there is a lot of stuff going…
> I will now duck and get far away from the internet, in fear of all the hateful comments explaining to me how I am wrong, and apparently just don't understand the superior beauty of complicated C syntax. I am going to be that person :-) One phrase – "declarations mirror use". In a declaration, you use the same set of operators around the declared object that you would use in a normal expression. All of these operato…
Surely it would still mirror use if the operators were applied to the type, rather than the identifier?
Preferring 'char ٭arr[X]' over '٭char[X] arr' seems arbitrary to me. I see no reason the 'declaration mirror use' principle can differentiate between the two.
Personally I prefer the latter since it makes it easy to separate the type from the identifier.
Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#86E.g. Clickbait.
I.e., not e.g. If you're going to leave snarky two word replies, you should at least use the right abbreviation.
Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I will now duck and get far away from the internet, in fear of all the hateful comments explaining to me how I am wrong, and apparently just don't understand the superior beauty of complicated C syntax. I am going to be that person :-) One phrase – "declarations mirror use". In a declaration, you use the same set of operators around the declared object that you would use in a normal expression. All of these operato…
Surely it would still mirror use if the operators were applied to the type, rather than the identifier? Preferring 'char ٭arr[X]' over '٭char[X] arr' seems arbitrary to me. I see no reason the 'declaration mirror use' principle can differentiate between the two. Personally I prefer the latter since it makes it easy to separate the type from the identifier.
> Surely it would still mirror use if the operators were applied to the type, rather than the identifier?
The "type" is actually a list of storage class specifiers (static, extern, auto, register, typedef, _Thread_local), type qualifiers (const, volatile, restrict) and type specifiers (int, char, float, double, signed, unsigned, long, short, void). Imagine the soup of keywords that would have to be at the deepest level of the expression:
static const volatile unsigned char *arr[X];
// vs
*static const volatile unsigned char[X] arr;Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#88E.g. Clickbait.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13236850 and marked it off-topic.
Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I will now duck and get far away from the internet, in fear of all the hateful comments explaining to me how I am wrong, and apparently just don't understand the superior beauty of complicated C syntax. I am going to be that person :-) One phrase – "declarations mirror use". In a declaration, you use the same set of operators around the declared object that you would use in a normal expression. All of these operato…
Surely it would still mirror use if the operators were applied to the type, rather than the identifier? Preferring 'char ٭arr[X]' over '٭char[X] arr' seems arbitrary to me. I see no reason the 'declaration mirror use' principle can differentiate between the two. Personally I prefer the latter since it makes it easy to separate the type from the identifier.
'char ٭arr[X]' over '٭char[X] arr'
What is this dirt after char and before char? This wouldn't even compile.
Re: A convenient untruth: Array notation in C is a lie
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I will now duck and get far away from the internet, in fear of all the hateful comments explaining to me how I am wrong, and apparently just don't understand the superior beauty of complicated C syntax. I am going to be that person :-) One phrase – "declarations mirror use". In a declaration, you use the same set of operators around the declared object that you would use in a normal expression. All of these operato…
I think if all type-information were kept together, it might read simpler: char*[X] arr; You read strictly left to right: char pointer array of size X called arr. Basically, it takes a simple type (char in this case) and for each thing to the right, wraps it in something. You could read it as: given a char, we have a pointer to it, and an array of size X of these pointers. It would be interesting if the use did "mirr…
> char pointer array of size X called arr
That does not even English.