Re: [TUHS] C declarations.

Some interesting comments:     "You all are missing the point as to what the cost of passing arrays by value or what other languages do" I don't think so.  To me the issues is that the model of what it means to compute has changed since the punch-card days.  When you submitted a card deck in the early days, you had to include both the function definition and the data--the function was compiled, the data was read, and, for the most part there were no significant side effects (just a printout, and maybe some stuff on mag tape). This was a model that had served mathematics well for centuries, and it was very easy to understand.  Functional programming people still like it a lot... However, with the introduction of permanent file systems, a new paradigm came into being.  Now, interactions with the computer looked more like database transactions:  Load your program, change a few lines, put it back, and then call 'make'.  Trying to describe this with a purely functional model leads to absurdities like:      file_system = edit( file_system, file_selector, editing_commands ); In fact, the editing commands can change files, create new ones, and even delete files.  There is no reasonable way to handle any realistic file systems with this model (let alone the Internet!) In C's early days, we were just getting into the new world.  Call by value for arrays would have been expensive or impossible on the machine with just a few kilobytes of memory for program + data.  So we didn't do it. Structures were initially handled like arrays, but the compiler chose to make a local copy when passed a structure pointer.  This copy was, at one time, in static memory, which caused some problems.  Later, it went on the stack.  It wasn't much used... This changed when the Blit terminal project was in place.  It was just too attractive on a 68000 to write     struct pt = {  int x;  int y }        /* when int was 16-bits */ and I made PCC pass small structures like this in registers, like other arguments.  I seem to remember a dramatic speedup (2X or so) from doing this... "(did) Dennis / Brian/ Ken regret this design choice? Not that I recall.  Of course, we all had bugs in this area.  But I think the lack of subscript range checking was a more serious problem than using pointers in the first place.  And, indeed, for a few of the pioneers, BCPL had done exactly the same thing.  Steve