Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!topaz!ll-xn!mit-amt!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pointers and Arrays
Message-ID: <477@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Aug-86 06:13:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.477
Posted: Sat Aug  9 06:13:57 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Aug-86 15:09:25 EDT
References: <2504@brl-smoke.ARPA> <475@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Organization: McGill University, Montreal
Lines: 33

[ > through >>>> re &array ]
>> If you think about it, a pointer to an int can be used (and is) as a
>> pointer to an array of ints. Unless you apply ++ to it, they are the
>> same thing.  (I can already feel the flames approaching).
> I assume Jim really means "unless you apply ++, --, [], *, +, -, +=, or
> -=" (unless I'm overlooking one).  That is, unless you use it in
> arithmetic, subscripting, or indirection.  Sort of covers what you can
> do with a pointer, doesn't it?

You are overlooking something important.  They are the same thing UNTIL
the size of what the pointer points to becomes important.  These
situations are:
	) ++
	) --
	) [] with a non-zero subscript
	) +
	) -
	) +=
	) -=
As for what they SHOULD be....a pointer to an array should be just
that; indirecting off it should result in an array.  There are good
reasons this isn't done; I have yet to hear an implementation suggested
that doesn't have worse flaws than the flaw currently under discussion.
-- 
					der Mouse

USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
     think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse
Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
ARPAnet: utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse@uw-beaver.arpa

"Come with me a few minutes, mortal, and we shall talk."
			- Thanatos (Piers Anthony's Bearing an Hourglass)