Dan Sommers schrieb: > int **_idx; > for( _idx = lst; _idx < lst + NLST; ++_idx ) { > int *i; > i = *_idx; > > /* compare "the item to which i is bound" to "a constant" */ > if( *i == *(&_i2) ) > /* rebind i to _i4 */ > i = &_i4; > } > > for( _idx = lst; _idx < lst + NLST; ++_idx ) { > int *i = *_idx; > printf( "%d\n", *i ); > }
i don't see what is so fundamentally different in this version compared to the one from Stuart Gathman (except it works, but i think it was a typo). do you want to stress that python uses an iterator (if so, i would have renamed _idx to _iter, because it ain't not index anymore)? whats the point of not starting the for loop at 0? and is there a difference between (*i == _idx) and (*i == *(&_idx))? -- David. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list