Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lucas
Since I'm done my work for the day, I'll continue this rant. What I (and I think Austin too) am getting at is this example (in same style as Chris' examples):
Code:
1 #include <stdlib.h>
2
3 int main()
4 {
5 int *array = malloc(10 * sizeof(int));
6 int *ptr = array;
7 int i;
8
9 for(i = 0; i < 10; i++)
10 ptr++;
11
12 return 0;
13 }
That is different and removes the need for the shift left op (since as Austin said the sizeof(int) is known at compile time and can just be added). Cant do that without explicit pointers. If the multiplication by type size is bothersome you can use an unsigned int and typecast it to a pointer. Also useful if you have an array of structs and are only working with same element in each struct (you can just add the size of the struct to the pointer). |
I don't understand the point (!) of your example. What part of it should I focus on? None of it appears to show me a reason for preferring to use explicit pointers.
Quote:
|
Plus explicit pointers make functions like swap (commonly used in bubblesort simple) simpler using C pass by reference...
|
Isn't pass by reference exactly what Java lets you do in such cases? I guess I'm completely failing to understand what you're trying to explain here.