Undelivered mail

[MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU]

Subject:  Re: nasty evil pointers

[Non-Deliverable:  User does not exist or has never logged on]

Reply-To: Info-C at BRL.ARPA

Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 7634
          for SXJVK at ALASKA; Sat, 12 Mar 88 04:04 AST
Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 5209; Sat, 12 Mar 88 05:03:32 PST
Date:         Fri, 11 Mar 88 23:54:38 GMT
Reply-To:     Info-C at BRL.ARPA
Sender:       Info-C List <INFO-C at NDSUVM1>
From:         00704a-Liber <nevin1 at ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Subject:      Re: nasty evil pointers
Comments: To: info-c at BRL-SMOKE.arpa
To:           Vic Kapella <SXJVK at ALASKA>

In article <13100003 at bucc2> brian at bucc2.UUCP writes:
>It would be nice if we could check every pointer as it was used...

This seems to be more of a job for the OS than for the language.  If you try to
check every single use of pointers, you end up with a language like Pascal
:-).  I don't mind the checking of pointers as long as it doesn't interfere
with the efficiency that those of us who program in C have come to love :-).
Also, if the pointer checks find an error, I would like it to transfer control
to an error-handling section of my program so that I could either try to
recover or go down *gracefully* (saving calculated data, etc.).
--
 _ __            NEVIN J. LIBER    ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1    (312) 510-6194
' )  )                "The secret compartment of my ring I fill
 /  / _ , __o  ____         with an Underdog super-energy pill."
/  (_</_\/ <__/ / <_    These are solely MY opinions, not AT&T's, blah blah blah