Hi Roger.

23-Sep-03 03:39:38, Roger Scudder wrote to All


 RS> From: r.scudder{at}rcn.com To: c_echo{at}yahoogroups.com

 RS> On Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:06 AM Jasen Betts wrote:

 KK>> if (string && *string)

 >> You're teesting string[0] against 0 twice,

 RS> Well, the first test compares the address to 0 ( the equivalent of
 RS> &string[0] == NULL ), while the second test compares string[0] to
 RS> 0.

yeah, I meant once in the if once in the for.

 RS> Doesn't hurt anything, but yeah...  Not really adding anything
 RS> either.

 >> and why the *(pointer+integer) syntax instead of pointer[integer] ?
 >> I used pointers more extensively to save arithmetic...

 RS> I think that p+n is the functional equivalent of p[n].  There
 RS> should be no difference in performance, only in coding style.

I was wondering why he likes that style...

 -=> Bye <=-

---
(3:640/1042)