Re: pointers (was: gcc-3+) - Gpc

21 Feb 2002

      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