> which you think is best to do or impossible in Pascal should be read as: which you think is best to do in C or impossible in Pascal Sorry, my bad. Tamas On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > > Strings are not the point the point is what does one do in Pascal to cast > types > > into strange things as needed on the fly and what can Pascal do about > variable > > number of arguments and variable arity. > > Olin already pointed out that you should write a specification of a task, > which you think is best to do or impossible in Pascal and see if Pascal > developers can do anything about it. Then we can argue if that is better in > C in terms of readability, stability or efficiency. (Mentioning language > specific features are not specifications, only a coding conventions.) > > Tamas > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Peter wrote: > >> William "Chops" Westfield mac.com> writes: >> > > char messages[10]; >> > > char messages[0] = "AARGH";; >> > > char messages[1] = "RESULT:"; >> >> tsk tsk, i wrote that quickly, normally it would be like >> >> char *messages[] { "AARGH", "RESULT" //etc... }; >> >> Strings are not the point the point is what does one do in Pascal to cast >> types >> into strange things as needed on the fly and what can Pascal do about >> variable >> number of arguments and variable arity. >> >> Peter >> >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > > > > -- > Rudonix DoubleSaver > http://www.rudonix.com > -- Rudonix DoubleSaver http://www.rudonix.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist