James Giles wrote:
> I can see how this might be vaguely useful, but what a mess it makes
> of the language. I'm just curious why pointers to zero-sized objects
> is allowed at all. Is there a value I'm not seeing?
I would say simply to avoid exceptions and inconsistencies (we haven't
done it very well, however).
P1 => array (1:n) ; P2 => array (1:n)
I would expect these to be associated for any legal value of n
(not become false just because n is 0, for example) and certainly
would not want this to be legal or illegal depending on the value
of n [any more than allocate (array(1:n)]. That's the whole
reason to allow zero-sized arrays in the first place, I think.
--
Walt Brainerd [log in to unmask]
Unicomp, Inc. +1-520-298-7212 298-7074 (fax)
7660 E. Broadway, Suite 308 888-330-6060
Tucson, AZ 85710 USA http://www.uni-comp.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|