Turbo C large character array

[Gary Duzan]

In article <1627 at excelan.COM> donp at novell.com (don provan) writes:
=>In article <manning.649438172 at gap> manning at gap.caltech.edu (Evan Marshall Manning) writes:
=>>doug at ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) writes:
=>>>x = (char **)malloc(num_rows*sizeof(char));
=>>			      ^^^^^^^^^^^^ try sizeof(char *)!!!!
=>
=>Actually, i prefer
=>
=>	char **x;
=>	x = (char **)malloc( num_rows * sizeof *x );
=>
=>Since the type of x has already been defined, why duplicate that
=>information in the malloc?  In general, i avoid sizeof(type), since
=>there's almost always a specific example of type at hand, and normally
=>it is in fact that specific example i want to know the size of, not
=>the generic type.  (And, of course, i'd *never* use a name like "x"...)
=>
   I think sizeof(type) is probably more popular (with me, at least) because
it keeps the function call/macro "look and feel". It seems strange to have an
identifier-looking operator when you are used to having funky symbol
combination operators. For similar reasons I will tend to use "return(foo);"
rather than "return foo;".
   Followups to alt.religion.computers.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration


p.s. But then again, I indent with tabs, so what could I know? :-)

p.p.s. I won't use "x" either, but I'm not beyond using "tmp" (though usually
as "tmpint", "tmppint", "tmpfoobar", etc.)

                                         GD,TL,TR



--
                          gdtltr at freezer.it.udel.edu
   _o_                    --------------------------                      _o_
 [|o o|] If you can square, round, or cube a number, why not sphere it? [|o o|]
  |_O_|         "Don't listen to me; I never do." -- Doctor Who          |_O_|