Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobbyi_settv | Hacker News Reader

> There are performance critical paths where passing a size_t is just unnecessary

You would still be able to declare your function as taking a pointer (instead of an array, which in this world would be a far pointer) if you need to

He's saying to deprecate char[] as a parameter type, not char

View on HN

Interestingly, I assume you meant to end your post with "pointer to char" not "char" itself, but asterix is the the italics formatting character on HN so it's italicized it. But the funny thing is that it's italicized the "reply" button (as well as an empty i-tag after "char").

That's right, nothing is taken away from the user with my proposal.

An existing alternative is to put an array in a struct:
struct string123 { char data[123]; };
Then create functions that user pointers to these string123 structs.

That does work, except for:
1. variable length buffers
2. every other piece of code you want to interface with uses `char*`

If you want a pointer to a fixed size array, just use one, eg
char (*data)[123]; // syntax is somewhat awkward

You can type def that

Reply on news.ycombinator.com