Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!hc!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran Subject: Re: Fortran versus C for numerical anal Message-ID: <4028@lanl.gov> Date: 22 Sep 88 18:22:45 GMT References: <1565@ficc.uu.net> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 24 From article <1565@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): >> Your argument about there 'being a pointer there anyway' is wrong. There >> is a pointer for the statically declared array as well - it's just optimized >> out during constant folding in the compile. > > Nonesense. There is no cell containing the address of that array. It's just > the 'C' equivalent of an assembly language label. YES, there _IS_ a cell containing the address of the array. It is an immediate constant imbedded in the instructions of the code. All data objects have an address. If, as you claim, we need explicit names for the addresses of _some_ data objects, then we should have such names for the addresses of _all_ data objects - there's such a thing as orthogonality. You still haven't addressed the _central_ point - _NOBODY_CARES_ where the array is located once it has been allocated! For the _vast_ majority of the code an array is an array is an array is an.... User's have no more need for an explicit handle on the address of a dynamic array than they do for a static one. The _only_ difference is (and should be) the declaration. J. Giles Los Alamos