Re: A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:15:45 -0800
GaryScott wrote:
(snip)
We had to wait so long, because adding pointers was a bad idea to
begin with. It was primarily the need to interoperate with bad
programming practices in other languages that prompted their addition.
There are a number of cases where pointers really are the
best solution. It seems that they have been overused in C and
some other languages, but that doesn't make them bad.
In PL/I, they are part of the list processing facility.
They work well for linked lists, trees, and other data
structures built up dynamically. They work especially
well as structure pointers, where one can point at a
data structure and then work with the different parts
of that structure (including other pointers).
-- glen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- From: GaryScott
- Re: A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- From: Arjen Markus
- Re: A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- References:
- A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- From: Henrik Holst
- Re: A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- From: relaxmike
- Re: A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- From: GaryScott
- A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- Prev by Date: Re: double precision difference between matlab and fortran 90
- Next by Date: Re: double precision difference between matlab and fortran 90
- Previous by thread: Re: A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- Next by thread: Re: A modern way to solve the "callback problem" from a subroutine?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|