How come C allow structure members to be addressed like an array ?

[pereges]

#include <stdio.h>

typedef struct
{
double x, y, z;
}vector;

int main(void)
{
int i;
vector v;
double *cord;

v.x = 10;
v.y = 1;
v.z = 2;

cord = &v.x;

for(i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
printf("%f\n", cord[i]);
}
return 0;
}

here's the output i get:
10.000000
1.000000
2.000000

which is the same as v

i don't how it happens as i was just trying some random ideas but
great stuff really. helped me to reduce some of my code to almost
1/3rd its size.

[Richard Bos]

pereges <Br*****@gmail. comwrote:

On Jun 17, 3:43 pm, Keith Thompson <[e-mail] rote:

Great. But why use the name "_vector"? If you insist on having
disinct names for the struct tag and the typedef, you could use a
trailing underscore or a "_s" suffix. For that matter, you could
just drop the struct tag:

typedef struct {
double coord[3];
} vector;

The only reason why I do it is because some times I have come across
situations which require self referential structures.

Why bother making them different in the first place? struct names live
in a namespace of their own; you can easily do

typedef struct tree {
struct tree *left;
struct tree *right;
unsigned long payload;
} tree;

It's quite legal.

Richard

[santosh]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 16 Jun 2008 at 18:46, santosh wrote:

>Again you fail to understand that there is such a thing called
topicality. Even you must admit that the current subject is simply
not topical in clc. And it's not hair-splitting or pedanticism
either. The subject is *massively* off-topic.

Why not tell that to Richard Heathfield, Keith Thompson, Flash Gordon,
CBFalconer, Nick Keighley, and one... santosh, who have all taken an
active part in this discussion?

Because you were the only one to protest against Keith Thompson's
request to Tomás to observe his own statement to cease the conversation
due to it's off-topic nature. No one has to my knowledge disputed
Tomás's right to air his opinions. It's just a matter of respecting
topicality, which even Tomás agrees with. You of course would like all
discussions on all possible subjects to take place in clc. What's the
matter, doesn't your Usenet server carry any other group beside clc?

[santosh]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

santosh said:

>Antoninus Twink wrote:

>>On 16 Jun 2008 at 0:34, Keith Thompson wrote:
Stop talking about the "Roma gypsies", right now. Don't respond to
this. Don't try to defend your opinions. Just shut the hell up
about it.

However unpleasant you may find Thomas's racist views, don't you
believe even more strongly that he has a right to free speech?

Again you fail to understand that there is such a thing called
topicality. Even you must admit that the current subject is simply
not topical in clc. And it's not hair-splitting or pedanticism
either. The subject is *massively* off-topic.

I agree that it's off-topic. For once I actually agree with Mr Twink,
too: Tomas has the right to peddle his revolting opinions in public if
he wishes.

Yes of course.

But we are not obliged to listen. And this is supposed to
be a techie group, not a sounding-board for racists.

My point exactly, and I suspect Keith's too.

>Why not move it to soc.culture.iri sh or somewhere similar?

I think it would be more appropriate to move it to alt.racist.bigo t,
don't you?

Perhaps. But if enough Irish do have broadly similar sentiments as Tomás
(and I'm not saying that they do or not do) then it might reasonably be
considered as topical in a group dealing with Irish society.

But of course, realistically it's way too late to move the
discussion anywhere. There is a certain inertia to a thread, and each
new participant increases that inertia, because it gets harder and
harder to get everyone to agree to subscribe to the new group and
continue the thread therein.

[Richard]

santosh <sa*********@gm ail.comwrites:

Antoninus Twink wrote:

>On 16 Jun 2008 at 18:46, santosh wrote:

>>Again you fail to understand that there is such a thing called
topicality. Even you must admit that the current subject is simply
not topical in clc. And it's not hair-splitting or pedanticism
either. The subject is *massively* off-topic.

Why not tell that to Richard Heathfield, Keith Thompson, Flash Gordon,
CBFalconer, Nick Keighley, and one... santosh, who have all taken an
active part in this discussion?

Because you were the only one to protest against Keith Thompson's
request to Tomás to observe his own statement to cease the conversation
due to it's off-topic nature. No one has to my knowledge disputed
Tomás's right to air his opinions. It's just a matter of respecting
topicality, which even Tomás agrees with. You of course would like all
discussions on all possible subjects to take place in clc. What's the
matter, doesn't your Usenet server carry any other group beside clc?

You seem to have missed the point. Having elevated yourself into the
ranks of the pedantic "regs" you feel it is OK for YOU to post OT to
threads which are considered "OT" in c.l.c.

Having said that Tomas' thread was highly unsavoury and would not really
be welcome anywhere.

[CBFalconer]

ra**********@gm ail.com wrote:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <t...@lavabit.c omwrote:

.... snip ...

>

>Now up until that point, I'd never been a fan of Roma gypsies,
but at the same time I'd no real animosity or hatred for them.
Now though, I don't even see them as people. There are friends
of mine who work in shops that have had far more experience with
Roma gypsies than I have, but I've never really understood the
venomous hatred my friends have had for them. But now, I
understand.

In my experience what you've described is indeed true, but I
always say these are the selected lot that have come over here
to abuse the system.

I have to say this, as xenophobic as Tom may seem, what he
describes even I cannot deny as being ludicrous or far from the
truth. Treating them as people to avoid like hell on the street
(Just as you would any other rough looking type or tramp), is one
thing. You can tell they are trouble, and you will want to stay
clear.

Congratulations . You just joined him on the bigot plonk list.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Keith Thompson]

santosh <sa*********@gm ail.comwrites:

Antoninus Twink wrote:

[more of the same]

Because you were the only one to protest against Keith Thompson's
request to Tomás to observe his own statement to cease the conversation
due to it's off-topic nature. No one has to my knowledge disputed
Tomás's right to air his opinions. It's just a matter of respecting
topicality, which even Tomás agrees with. You of course would like all
discussions on all possible subjects to take place in clc. What's the
matter, doesn't your Usenet server carry any other group beside clc?

santosh, please don't feed the troll.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"