>
> There are many pitfalls, and a C programmer using pointers must code with
> strict discipline in order to avoid them.
>



> Yes, this is one of the reasons why I

Yes, this is one of the reasons why i feel more confident writing assembler
(not that I am great at that either) because addressing and indirect
addressing is by comparison straight forward in assembler.

mov ax,[bx + 100]

what could be simpler to understand., get what is at address bx + 100 and
place it into ax.

mov bx,cx

that look like I have just moved the address to some place in memory that is
of interest into cx.

I know it would be difficult to write lengthy complex code in assembler so
its not a good argument and i cant do fun stuff like

temp_p = &timer mind you I dont think you need to do that in assembler
because you always have the address.

but perhaps if in c

we could declare a pointer to int like

[int] temp_p ; temp_p holds an address that can point to an integer

int time;  allocate some space and have time point to it.

temp_p = [[time]];  get the address to the start of the space allocated
above.



void tt([int] temp_p)
{

int t;
t = [temp_p] + 5;  get what is at address temp_p and add 5 to it.
[temp_p] = t;

}

on second thought that is worse.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist