initializing array using pointer

[arun]

suppose i have a pointer to an array of integers.can i initialize each
member of the array using pointers?plz explain

[saurabh]

Hi,

You can assign values to array elements using pointer. Look at the code
below:

main ()
{
int array[3];
int *pArry, count;

pArry = array;

*pArry = 1; pArry++;
*pArry =2; pArry++;
*pArry =3;

for (count = 0; count <3; count++)
printf ("array[%d] contains %d\r\n",count, array[count]);

}

Is this what you want.

Regards,
Saurabh.

arun wrote:

suppose i have a pointer to an array of integers.can i initialize each
member of the array using pointers?plz explain

[slebetman]

arun wrote:

suppose i have a pointer to an array of integers.can i initialize each
member of the array using pointers?plz explain

You mean something like:

#define ARR_MAX 100

int arr[ARR_MAX];
int *myptr;
int i;

myptr = arr;
for(i=0; i<ARR_MAX; i++) {
*myptr = 0;
myptr++;
}

[Johny]

Question not clear.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Johny <in********@gma il.com> wrote:

Question not clear.

Neither was your response:

It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <dn**********@c hessie.cirr.com >,
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:

Johny <in********@gma il.com> wrote:

Question not clear.

Neither was your response:

It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get
it. And I'll tell you why.

Imagine that there's a mouse - and the mouse is the Usenet. You and I can
see that it is a mouse and we behave accordingly. But now there is a class
of users (we'll call them "googlers") that are wearing these funny weird
glasses that make them see not a mouse, but an elephant. Seeing an
elephant (i.e., the Usenet as a web page), they also behave accordingly.
And no amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them that it's not
an elephant - that it is only a mouse.

To make this more clear, to a googler, it doesn't make any sense to "quote"
(whatever the heck that is...), in fact, to do so would be absurd, when all
the rest of the articles in the thread are right there in front of their
faces (just as clear as the trunk on that mouse, er, elephant). And no
amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them not to believe what
they see. The point is you can *never* convince someone that what they see
isn't reality. The only way you can address the problem is to help them
fix their eyesight (or help them remove their funny glasses).

[Richard Bos]

ga*****@yin.int eraccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article <dn**********@c hessie.cirr.com >,
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:

Johny <in********@gma il.com> wrote:

Question not clear.

Neither was your response:

It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get it.

Neither will you, but if we stop trying your kind will have won and all
will be barbarity.

Richard

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <43************ ****@news.xs4al l.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:

ga*****@yin.in teraccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article <dn**********@c hessie.cirr.com >,
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:

>Johny <in********@gma il.com> wrote:
>
>> Question not clear.
>
>Neither was your response:
>
>It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the
>text you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please
>follow the instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:
>
>If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
>the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
>"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
>"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never
get it.

Neither will you, but if we stop trying your kind will have won and all
will be barbarity.

Richard

To borrow a line from a fellow troll:

You say that like it would be a Bad Thing.

[Skarmander]

Richard Bos wrote:

ga*****@yin.int eraccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article <dn**********@c hessie.cirr.com >,
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:

Johny <in********@gma il.com> wrote:

Question not clear.
Neither was your response:

It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get it.

Neither will you, but if we stop trying your kind will have won and all
will be barbarity.

You already stopped trying. Please, DFTT, no matter what. Every reply is a loss.

S.

[Default User]

Richard Bos wrote:

ga*****@yin.int eraccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

[google reply]

You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll
never get it.

Neither will you, but if we stop trying your kind will have won and
all will be barbarity.

And of course, Kenny is wrong (what a surprise). Many of the people
have learned to quote properly via the instructions given to them.
Many, if not most, do so because the Google interface is so archane
that they couldn't figure out how to do so.

With any luck the idjits at Google will switch that around.
Brian