From:	pjotr AT wlink DOT net (pjotr)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Newbie Pointers
Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:22:22 GMT
Organization:	Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!
Lines:	28
Message-ID:	<36c0df47.5699744@news.w-link.net>
References:	<36BFAABA DOT CDC55472 AT castle DOT on DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	208.151.227.236
X-Trace:	918610205 T.3QWX1FWE3ECD097C usenet58.supernews.com
X-Complaints-To:	newsabuse AT remarQ DOT com
X-Newsreader:	Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 08 Feb 1999 22:25:47 -0500, "David F. Signoretti"
<balboa AT castle DOT on DOT ca> wrote:

>Assume:
>struct item
>{
> int number;
> struct item *next_ptr;
> struct item *back_ptr;
>};
>
>Assume double linked list:
>(*new_ptr).back_ptr = (struct item *)NULL;
>
>then:
>(*current_ptr).back_ptr = (*new_ptr).back_ptr;
>
>Does (*current_ptr).bak_ptr = NULL or the address of
>(*new_ptr).back_ptr?

It's NULL, to get the actual adress of the item that holds the
pointer, use:

(*current_ptr).back_ptr = &((*new_ptr).back_ptr);

Cheers,
Pjotr

- Raw text -