From: jstacey AT plato DOT wadham DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (J-P)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: allocated memory size
Date: 19 May 2000 11:56:22 +0100
Organization: Wadham College Oxford
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <8g36km$r9d$1@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk>
References: <200005190942 DOT LAA19117 AT acp3bf DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk
X-Trace: news.ox.ac.uk 958733783 685 163.1.164.74 (19 May 2000 10:56:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster AT ox DOT ac DOT uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 May 2000 10:56:23 GMT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

In article <200005190942 DOT LAA19117 AT acp3bf DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>,
Hans-Bernhard Broeker  <djgpp AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>Especially since you describe yourself as a C novice, you should
>*never* do such things. Stick to the core of the language while you're
>still learning. 

Pointers *are* the core of the language. If you try and ignore them, you
don't get very far before you're torn between finally discussing them, or
suggesting that C "passes by reference."

The sheer usefulness and tried-and-testedness of pointers is, IMHO, what
sets C apart from other similarly medium-level languages (assembler being
one extreme; Perl or even MATLAB being the other).

This should probably go to comp.lang.c.philosophy :)

J-P
-- 
The Realtors // wish clearly // tuxedo trouble // Staying Alive // the
rotating dalmatian