scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) (03/01/91)
I hope no one was seriously in love with any of the wording in
the old "Arrays and Pointers" section; the first several
questions and answers in it have been completely rewritten, so
that the answers match the questions a little better (while also
explaining the essential difference between arrays and pointers a
little better, I hope). The order of presentation is still
imperfect (there's one unfortunate forward reference), although
this may be inevitable. K&R's section (5.3) on pointers and
arrays begins with the observation that "In C, there is a strong
relationship between pointers and arrays, strong enough that
pointers and arrays really should be treated simultaneously."
The two aren't just strongly related, they're practically
inseparable; so there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem in
presenting them.
There are also two new questions on a "favorite comp.lang.c
topic," efficiency. I'm going out on a limb somewhat by
including them at all, since it is probably impossible to word
the answers so that they are compatible simultaneously with all
of the opinions which people hold on this subject. I am sure
that my editorial bias will be unacceptable to the more adamant
efficiency aficionadoes on the net; doubtless I am irretrievably
corrupting the minds of the world's impressionable computing
youth by posting such heresy. Free clue: *mailed* complaints,
criticisms, and suggestions are always considered, and are
usually responded to. Posted followups will probably be ignored.
Steve Summit
scs@adam.mit.edu
scs%adam.mit.edu@mit.edu
mit-eddie!adam!scs