Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amelia!lemming.nas.nasa.gov!fouts
From: fouts@lemming.nas.nasa.gov.nas.nasa.gov (Marty Fouts)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: RE:  An array by any other name. . .
Message-ID: <994@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 15 Sep 88 19:07:23 GMT
References: <13567@mimsy.UUCP> <3630@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
Reply-To: fouts@lemming.nas.nasa.gov.nas.nasa.gov (Marty Fouts)
Lines: 22

In article <3630@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>. . . I can't declare an array in C without getting
>one or more pointers declared into the bargain.

Giles, you are not paying attention.  YES YOU CAN.  Please quit
playing semantic games.  C has both ordinary arrays and pointer to
pointer to pointer to . . . arrays.  To paraphrase Giles in a
different argument:

x[i] and x+i are semantically equivalent.  It doesn't matter which way
I say it, they both express a reference to the address of the ith
element from the start of x.  In some cases, x happens to be a
pointer, in others not.

We all enjoy a good argument, but this is getting silly.

Marty
+-+-+-+     I don't know who I am, why should you?     +-+-+-+
   |        fouts@lemming.nas.nasa.gov                    |
   |        ...!ames!orville!fouts                        |
   |        Never attribute to malice what can be         |
+-+-+-+     explained by incompetence.                 +-+-+-+