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
