Re: pointers (was: gcc-3+) - Gpc

20 Feb 2002


      Please see below ...
Joe.
...
-----Original Message-----
From:	Frank Heckenbach [SMTP:frank@g-n-u.de]
Sent:	Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:03 PM
To:	gpc@gnu.de
Subject:	Re: pointers (was: gcc-3+)
da Silva, Joe wrote:
...
Yes. Linked lists are both possible and easy, with your "store" and
"reference" pointer idea, provided there is a standard (ie. inbuilt)
"procedure" to swap two "store" pointers. I think that's all you need
to overcome the problem with linked lists.
Sorry, but to me it seems a way to solve this particular situation
that occurs with simple linked lists (as you described in a previous
mail) where you have an exact overview what is going on (and
therefore don't need the whole concept at all -- *because* you know
exactly what's going on, and could just do things correctly with
normal pointers). Avoiding memory leaks with simple links lists is
not exactly a difficult problem.
[Joe da Silva]
True, standard pointers are quite adequate for simple
    linked lists.
------ snip ------