Do you think that will be fine? It seems like he would have made it clearer if that was the case. Right? I am not too sure... I am very new at this.
Do you think that will be fine? It seems like he would have made it clearer if that was the case. Right? I am not too sure... I am very new at this.
When you calculate an average, it's easier (but not necessary) to compute the sum, and only then divide by the number of elements, once. BTW, you've written the function to assume that the number of elements is 5. You could pass the number of elements as another argument, and then divide by whatever it is.Originally Posted by leopardforest@g
If you did the loop using a pointer (say named salesp), it would be initialized to sales, then incremented to sales+1, then sales+2, ... and for each value of salesp the corresponding number would be *salesp (instead of *(sales + i)).
I doubt it. Write it; tell me that the instructor expected someone to recognize that end condition considering what we have seen so far.
[edit]Well, it's not horrible; but it seems to me a stretch.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
