> C is sometimes a high level language.
 :-)

> 
> >(no im not trying to start a flamewar, im just being an extremist for the
> >sake of argument, but i _do_ cherish and take advantage of interchangable
> >inetgers and pointers.. :) 
> 
> It's a cool toy, but it's not always a reasonable assumption; you can make a
> *VERY* nice environment for writing bulletproof code if you make sure that
> every "pointer" contains a substantial amount of additional data about what
> it points to.
> 
> Now, no one is likely to build a CPU that way, but it's a viable compiler
> setting.

Not in a language like C!!!! this kind of stuff has no place in C!
Languages that provide high-level insulation from the real syste, sure,
they can do this kindo f thing to their heart's content, because there, a
'pointer' is merely a meansof referencing some strictly defined and
controlled data element[s]. In C, a pointer means a memory address. It
is blasphemous to try to bind to that any sort of imposition on what to
expect at the other end of that pointer, or to try to tell one how to
interpret the data in that space!!! If you like this sort of restriction,
then dont use C, there are plenty of high-level languages that support
plenty of this [personally repulsive] stuff! then, though, you may as well
not use the term 'pointer' for it!

Isildur