Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!hadron!jsdy@SEISMO.ARPA From: jsdy@SEISMO.ARPA Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Multidimensional C arrays Message-ID: <7351@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 13:15:13 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7351 Posted: Tue Jan 15 13:15:13 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 03:26:18 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 22 > I wish you would explain how the semantics of > foo( int array[rows][cols], int rows, int cols ); > would be inconsistent with those already in effect for > constant-sized array arguments. I don't see this at all. Hmmm. If I said t h a t , then I must be working later than I thought. I believe I confusing two things in one message. Passing arrays by value (entirely on the stack) is inconsistent with the current semantics. This is what one person had suggested. The current semantics is that all arrays are passed by reference (pointer). Passing a pointer to an array, after passing one or more of its dimensions, seems to me to be consistent, but needs a lot more work on the part of the compiler. Which is fine with me, but I don't have time to do it this week (month, ...). Anybody? Remember that this means the dimensions must be either squirreled away or declared 'const'. Also, there are lots of chances now for people to break programs by changing array sizes one place but not another ... but that's nothing gnew, I guess. We're not going to check array sizes, here. Joe Yao (UUCP!seismo!hadron!jsdy / hadron!jsdy@seismo.ARPA)