[log in to unmask] wrote:
>In a message dated 5/13/00 2:58:21 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>>
>>GRRR, yes, you're right. As long as building up the structure (being it
>>a linked list, a tree, or something more complicated) - and just
>>traversing that or running down its branches - is involved, ALLOCATABLE
>>would suffice. However, once one wants to reconstruct (or demolish)
>>said constructs, pointers are inevitable.
>>
>>Bweh,
>>
>
>Not quite. As James Giles might point out even in such cases you do not
need
>pointers, you can use (re) allocatable arrays with comparable performance,
>however the syntax and implementation will be very different and
unintuitive
>to many users.
Well, actually both the syntax and implementation can be quite
similar (as I'veshown occasion before). It merely takes a little
thought and knowledge of what the program actually needs
to do.
By the way, welcome back. Hope your house and
property were undamaged .
--
J. Giles
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|