RE: [Dev-C++] dynamic allocation and structs

[Ioannis V. <no...@ho...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ioannis Vranos [mailto:no...@ho...] 
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:39 PM
> To: Dev-C++ Mailing List (dev...@li...)
> Subject: RE: [Dev-C++] dynamic allocation and structs
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Per Westermark [mailto:pw...@ia...] 
> > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:51 AM
> > To: Ioannis Vranos
> > Cc: 'Dev-C++ Mailing List'
> > Subject: RE: [Dev-C++] dynamic allocation and structs
> > 
> > 
> > The trick is that vector isn't programming. It is a standard 
> > - and very
> > old - mathematical term for a one-dimensional matrix.
> 
> 
> Yes, but when we speak of C++ code, calling a built in array 
> a "vector" can only be confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> > There has been
> > millions of vector implementations before STL did a template 
> > version, and
> > the probability of a finding a STL construct in a C program 
> > is not that
> > high :-)
> 
> 
> Yes, but it still can be confusing to C++ programmers.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > While code might syntactically switch around between
> > (*a).x,
> > a->x
> > a[0].x
> > 
> > the third form is definitely dangerous to use when a is only 
> > a pointer to
> > a single element. If there is an element zero, the logical 
> > conclusion is
> > that there must be a element one.
> 
> 
> Yes, if there is only one element i would use the -> only. 
> When we have more the [] is more suitable. Both are valid.

Also i cannot understand why someone would create a single dimensional
array of pointers on the free store and then assign an element on the
free store to each of them. It's a total waste of everything. :) Using a
simple pointer and allocating space for the elements directly on the
free store would be a reasonable thing to do.

/* Array of 100 mystructs on the free store */
struct mystruct *p=malloc(100*sizeof(*p));



Ioannis

* Ioannis Vranos
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys