«

saneman wrote:
> But does anyone have an idea to a minimal example where its impossible
> to avoid pointer?

Try creating a linked list without pointers.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:00:10 +0200, Juha Nieminen wrote:

> saneman wrote:
>> But does anyone have an idea to a minimal example where its impossible
>> to avoid pointer?
>
> Try creating a linked list without pointers.

Sure it's possible... clunky, painful and probably inefficient, but
possible (e.g. use arrays for storage and arrays of indices for access).

--
Lionel B

On 2008-02-14 10:35:15 -0500, Lionel B <> said:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:00:10 +0200, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>
>> saneman wrote:
>>> But does anyone have an idea to a minimal example where its impossible
>>> to avoid pointer?
>>
>> Try creating a linked list without pointers.
>
> Sure it's possible... clunky, painful and probably inefficient, but
> possible (e.g. use arrays for storage and arrays of indices for access).

But given that it's hypothetically impossible to give such an example
(a Turing machine doesn't have pointers), examples that are clunky,
painful, and inefficient without pointers are good answers.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

saneman <> wrote:

> Sorry for the confusion. I would like an example where its impossible to
> avoid use 'new' (dynamic allocation).
>
> The reason is that I often use pointers and references but seldom the
> keyword 'new'.

You seldom use the keyword 'new'? Sounds like you have answered your own
question. Try to go back and do the same thing without the keyword.

In C++, you should be using 'new' very rarely.

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:19:02 -0500, Daniel T. wrote:

> In C++, you should be using 'new' very rarely.

Oh.. I did not know that



--
http://lispmachine.wordpress.com/