Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!oliveb!felix!arcturus!evil
From: evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Point me in the right direction
Summary: how about structs
Message-ID: <3735@arcturus>
Date: 21 Feb 89 18:26:39 GMT
References: <23631@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1841@mit-caf.MIT.EDU> <1043@auspex.UUCP>
Organization: Rockwell International, Anaheim, CA
Lines: 46

In article <1043@auspex.UUCP>, guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
[someone started with:]

> double fund_consts[] = {
> 	3.14159265,
> 	2.7182818,
> 	6.02E23,
> };

[and someone else added:]

> Of course, adding:
> 	#define N_FCONSTS (sizeof(fund_consts)/sizeof(double)) 

[and Guy said:] 

> So far, so good - this is an old C trick, which is quite useful, but may
> not be known as well as it should be - but...

[and I say:]

This is all well and good, but what about arrays of structures?  Am I
S.O.L. because of inter-array-element padding if I:

	struct already_defined snarf[] = {...};

and then try to get the size by doing:

	#define N_WHATEVER (sizeof(snarf)/sizeof(struct already_defined))

or can I (portably)

	int size;
	. . .
	size = sizeof(snarf)/(&snarf[1]-&snarf[0]);

(assuming, of course, that snarf has at least 2 elements. . .)


Wade Guthrie
evil@arcturus.UUCP
Rockwell International
Anaheim, CA

(Rockwell doesn't necessarily believe / stand by what I'm saying; how could
they when *I* don't even know what I'm talking about???)