Asri-unix.434 net.unix-wizards utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!gwyn@UTEXAS-11 Tue Jan 5 22:39:41 1982 Reply to: C arrays: some oddities My understanding of the intent of the language agrees with the Ritchie compiler's, except that in the case type array[SIZE]; type array2[SIZE1][SIZE2]; I would have expected &array and &array2 to be undefined (although I think the Ritchie compiler does the right thing if they are defined). type array3[SIZEA][SIZEB][SIZEB]; array3 == &array3[0] == &array3[0][0] == &array3[0][0][0]; array3[i] == &array3[i][0] == &array3[i][0][0]; array3[i][j] == &array3[i][j][0]; is how I interpret "incomplete" array subscripting; I recommend writing &array3[0][0][0] instead of array3 to make the C code less subject to interpretation by the reader (you get the same generated code in either case, but the address of an array element is the more familiar concept to most programmers). ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/ This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided: 1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles. 2. The following notice remains appended to each copy: The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.