Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran versus C for numerical anal Message-ID: <1552@ficc.uu.net> Date: 20 Sep 88 13:56:11 GMT References: <50500075@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <3708@lanl.gov> <1530@ficc.uu.net> <15145@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Organization: SCADA Lines: 20 In article <15145@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes: > In article <1530@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >char (*twodarray)[10]; > > twodarray = malloc(10*sizeof(*twodarray)); > > twodarray[9][5] = 'c'; > >Satisfied? > I think the point of dynamically sized arrays has been lost here. Nah, it wasn't ever there. Jim's assertion was that he has never seen dynamically allocated arrays in 'C' that matched the syntax and semantics of statically allocated ones. Yes, conformant arrays are very nice. No, 'C' doesn't have them. However, the assertion that you can't allocate an array without defining a bunch of pointers is demonstrably bunk. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net