From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fbe747283d8e6afc,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: vo@ctron.com
Subject: Re: More like *p versus p[0]
Date: 1997/11/25
Message-ID: <65evej$cph$1@mer-news.ctron.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 292570930
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc
Reply-To: vo@ctron.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Originator: vo@porthos
Date: 1997-11-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



If you really have a problem with using *p
then you should use p[0]. Never, never 
underestimate  C 's expressiveness.
>
>Dennis Weldy wrote:
>
>
>> >Well, I was thinking of the use of * both for defining pointers and for
>> >dereferencing them.
>> 
>> I've always thought htat made sense: the declaraction matches use.
>
>N, they don't; the order is different.
>
>> Or do you object to using [] for the declaration of arrays, and for indexing
>> into the array as well? ;-)
>
>No, because there it's consistent.
>
>
>-- 
>
>                        Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>                        Senior Software SE
-- 
Huy Vo
Cabletron Systems, Inc
vo at ctron dot com
Nashua Facility