In article <gat-0505020039060...@192.168.1.50>,
g...@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote:
> True, but it's not nearly as clear that a cons cell is not at all like a CThe word "pointer" is perhaps not found in the language specification,
> struct. In fact, to explain the behavior of passing a cons cell you have
> to hypothesize that you're really passing a pointer to the cons cell as
> the "value", but this hypothetical pointer is nowhere to be found in the
> language specification. You have to invent it. IMO that's no more
> reasonable than inventing a new term to describe what's going on.
but if a C programmer just mentally substitutes the word "pointer" every
place it says "binding" then they'll understand it perfectly well.
In some ways a C++ reference is a better analogy, but in other ways
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.