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.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|