[doktrin]

My code changed in a similar way, however I recently devolved.

I've mostly worked with higher level languages, and recently delved back into C. I had forgotten what a complete pain in the ass it is to pass complex data structures around between functions.

I'm a bit ashamed to admit my functions got pretty damn beefy real quick.

[marvin]

Don't worry, you can do this in C# or Python as well. Just structure your small, gradually growing proof-of-concept and soon-to-be-finished-product program correctly. No classes! Or at the very least a few monolithic ones, which cannot be instantiated. Use static methods whenever possible. I have never ever ever done this.

(I am getting ready to write an essay titled "Confessions of a Shitty Programmer").

[lstamour]

Try C++, join the dark side! In addition to chocolate chip cookies, we promise C++11 move semantics for returned objects/values. The cookies/cake might be a lie. :-)

[krapp]

I had to create a small ADO class for advanced C++ last year.

It was... terrifying.

[Nursie]

&structure ... ?

[doktrin]

> &structure

AFAIK, that's only a legal function signature in C++.

To the point of the question : when I wrote that, I was specifically thinking of 2-dimensional arrays, not structs per se.

[Nursie]

I meant passing a pointer rather than a by-ref call (which is indeed C++ only).

i.e. void myfunc(thing* stuff) { return; }

int main() { thing stuff; myfunc(&stuff); }

[doktrin]

Oh, totally agreed. What I had difficulty with, specifically, was passing around a struct that contained a multidimensional array of a size determined at runtime.

I'm sure the problems I had could be solved by either a full re-design (not really an option), or accomplished by someone with more C experience.

[ATLobotomy]

It shouldn't matter what the struct is holding, you are passing a pointer, it's always the same size.