NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/lang/c/12830

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-26 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!sybase!hamish
From: [e-mail] (Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pointer/address reluctance
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:44:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: Sybase Inc, Emeryville CA USA
Lines: 34

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Jensen) writes:
    [...]
<IMHO, I find it much easier to think of an address as a value
>which identifies a location in memory, and a pointer as a
<variable designed to hold a value which identifies a location in
>memory, i.e. an address.
<
>Based on the above definitions (which I feel few could argue
<with), a pointer is an lvalue whereas an address is not.  Thus,
>there is a distinct difference between the two.  What is
<frustrating is when a writer states that a function or
>calculation "returns a pointer".
<
>The problem, of course, stems from the failure to distinguish
<between an integer variable, and an integer value, a float
>variable and a float value, etc.  Consider the following:

    [rest of posting deleted]

Erm, I'm sure I've missed *something* here, but if you want to use your
own integer value / integer variable analogy, surely you want to use:

    pointer value / pointer variable

in this context?

In that case, of course, the word "address" disappears (as does most of
the rest of your article and the analysis therein)....


    Hamish
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Reid       Sybase Inc, 6475 Christie Ave, Emeryville CA 94608 USA
[phone]   [e-mail]  [e-mail]  uunet!sybase!hamish