Yeah, "stored" and "referenced" seem okay. Other possibility is "master" and "slave". Anyway, as they say : "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." (ie. I guess there's no need to worry about these details unless this concept looks like going ahead).
Joe.
-----Original Message----- From: Markus Gerwinski [SMTP:markus@gerwinski.de] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:31 PM To: da Silva, Joe Cc: 'gpc@gnu.de' Subject: Re: pointers (was: gcc-3+)
Hi folks,
da Silva, Joe wrote:
- I wonder if the words "store" and "reference" are complementary?
Is complementarity a demand here? Clear distinction's sufficient, I think...
How about "primary" and "secondary" instead? Or something else? This is subjective, but I'm not sure if the word "store" would "read" very well in the following suggested syntax (looks too much like a verb;-) :
Agreed, but IMO "primary" and "secondary" are too general words to really describe the use of the pointers. What about "stored" and "referenced"?
type pointer = ^integer; pointer2 = stored ^integer; pointer3 = referenced ^integer;
Cheers
Markus