Re:C uses "&" for the address-operator because 'ampersand so...
by tsimionescu on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @02:01PM
(#37835333)
No one here is proposing implicit dereferencing (everywhere), the proposal is just to make the syntax `pointer.field` have the exact same meaning that `pointer->field` has in C today. In all other places, the current syntax and semantics would stay the same.
Since in all situations where pointer->field is valid pointer.valid is an explicit error in C today, this would have been very much doable without major changes in compiler or language implementation.
Of course, at C's level of abstraction, and given the speed limitations of the day, the syntax difference between -> and . may well be argued to have been helpful instead of harmful.
And yes, the same could not be said for C++, where you can implement dereferencing for your own type and get a variable where both `a.b` and `a->b` are valid and have different meanings. This is anyway not a proposal for changing C (or C++) today, merely a "what if" discussion about how C could have been designed differently.
Since in all situations where pointer->field is valid pointer.valid is an explicit error in C today, this would have been very much doable without major changes in compiler or language implementation.
Of course, at C's level of abstraction, and given the speed limitations of the day, the syntax difference between -> and . may well be argued to have been helpful instead of harmful.
And yes, the same could not be said for C++, where you can implement dereferencing for your own type and get a variable where both `a.b` and `a->b` are valid and have different meanings. This is anyway not a proposal for changing C (or C++) today, merely a "what if" discussion about how C could have been designed differently.