p[1] vs. *(p+1)

[Wayne Throop]

> From: bruce at seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Bruce Worden)
>> (Paul Schmidt)
>> *(p+1) does not add 1 to p, but instead adds
>> sizeof(array_element_type) to p?
> Yes.

No.  Or less bluntly, that's not (IMHO) a very good way of putting it. 
Bruce is right as far as he goes, but I think Paul's phrase above is
misleading. 

What I'm objecting to is the dimensionless "adding one to it (a pointer)".
One what? People most probably mean "one byte" by this, but I don't
think peoples' understanding of pointer arithmetic is strong enough to
trust their notions of "add one to" a pointer should be trusted.  And I
think history bears me out. 

Or to be specific, I druther see the above exchange be something like

     Q. *(p+1) does not add 1 to p, 
        but instead adds sizeof(array_element_type) to p?

     A. No.  It produces a pointer value that references the
        next array_element_type array element after the one
        referenced by p.  On byte addressed machines, the bit
        pattern of this pointer, when treated as an integer,
        is often an integer sizeof(array_element_type) greater
        than the integer gotten by treating the bits of p as
        an integer.  But this latter fact is a coincidence produced
        by a particular implementation of C pointers.

Now, I suppose this seems awfully picky.  "Didn't he just say that" and
all that.  But the point is that the underlying assumption of a smooth
byte-granular address space with pointers represented as integer offsets
into this address space is NOT the best way of explaining pointers, even
if it is the one so many people use.

Or to try putting it another way, I think it is misleading to say that
"adding one to p 'really' adds sizeof(*p) to p".  I disagree.  I say it
"really" adds 1, and the result points at an element in the array into
which p points which is offset exactly 1 array element from where p
points.
--
Wayne Throop <backbone>!mcnc!rti!sheol!throopw or sheol!throopw at rti.rti.org