Dr.Elch

I will. Cheers and have a good evening! :-)

alright guys, I think I have some good new insights what I will do with those people next time. Thank you a lot for your input!

:-)

it works because it is still a normal binary operator, but with a strange notation?

holy crap I wasn't really aware of that ^^

maybe I can use the [] notation and later on refactor it to use the * notation to show them it's the same thing

[] vs. *

but how do I explain the notation? :-)

true i can still write it like that

hmm but that example would already incorporate pointer arithmetics

ok so far a good example

no pointer arithmetic for those guys for a long time Glen :-)

so arrays, then pointers, then strings?

strings are another can of worms :-D

going down the array path would require me to limit arrays to integer arrays.

fair enough. I begin to think the same... :-)

but I have people that need something closer to a real world problem, they can relate to

that's what i would do with technical people

sure i can do that. but in the end of the day i will be required to answre the question: "that's neat, but why do i need it?"

i do actually. :-) not sure why i hoped for a clear answer to that question ^^ i had a lot of trouble to figure out which SO Board I should use, since it became so fragmented

the second approach would focus more on the true character of pointers, which handles stuff in other places, while the array approach may let to the assumption that a pointer is merely an instrument on such structures

right

you mean like "oh why can a function only return 1 value"?

and I'd have a more defined application for pointers. I really want to avoid too much abstraction

true, i could actually do that.

well would you suggest introducing arrays first?

no worries :-)

Hi. Yes, that question is why i'm here :-)