Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!woody
From: woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Koenig on pointers and arrays
Summary: clarity
Message-ID: <17710@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 21 Jan 90 04:45:48 GMT
References: <2804@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <10347@alice.UUCP>
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Plano, TX
Lines: 25

In article <10347@alice.UUCP>, ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
> 
> initial (0th) element of `a'.  Thus the call
> 
> 	f(a);
> 
> is precisely equivalent to the call
> 
> 	f(&(a[0]));
> 
> in which it is perhaps more readily visible that what is being passed
> is actually the address of an element.


I find that the above construct is the most easily understandable version.
I use an old old 'C' compiler, lattice 2.0 for the PC, at work.  For
historical reasons, It is not an easy task to maintain the several megs
of code that it is my job to maintain and enhance, with any other compiler.
Prior coders used compiler dependencies rather heavily.  I have *believe it
or not * had problems just refering to an array with this compiler and 
haveing it give me the address.  In self defense, I have adopted &(array[0])
as my convention.  It does tend to show what the meaning is.

Cheers
Woody