Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Problem with array objects
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:37:34 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4DE694FE.20606@dignus.com>
References: <slrniso5lm.s9.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net>   <4DDD34A8.6030005@dignus.com> <4VdDp.17340$h35.4417@newsfe19.ams2> <4DDD9893.9060502@dignus.com> <ghhDp.11778$f95.7720@newsfe02.ams2> <4DDE50C0.1080402@dignus.com> <8ktDp.17767$h35.800@newsfe19.ams2> <4DDE9FCD.9050005@dignus.com> <rlyDp.14214$Ky.5147@newsfe24.ams2> <4DDFA87C.9060808@dignus.com> <mXNDp.33897$IL2.20921@newsfe04.ams2> <4DDFF65B.8010007@dignus.com> <21UDp.11231$5C7.1331@newsfe10.ams2> <4DE03514.7080802@dignus.com> <bhXDp.17713$8A7.15190@newsfe12.ams2> <4DE10DA2.9050201@dignus.com> <plbEp.20101$h35.14408@newsfe19.ams2> <4DE19579.1060300@dignus.com> <M9qEp.30087$7H.25042@newsfe08.ams2> <4DE252BD.8060100@dignus.com> <nVwEp.24865$h_.19621@newsfe30.ams2> <4DE2D8FA.6@dignus.com> <7fPEp.12138$El6.500@newsfe21.ams2> <4DE4F114.9040801@dignus.com> <VnbFp.20543$f95.5956@newsfe02.ams2> <4DE6453C.7080307@dignus.com> <WnsFp.26182$2E6.19294@newsfe18.ams2> <4DE669DE.2050400@dignus.com> <govFp.36674$%o4.1089@newsfe16.ams2>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5vmandCOS2XnoG0+Ic8whg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20061027
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:5997

Paul wrote:

>
> Well I don't know what definitons you are speaking about.
> As far as I can tell, the way I see arrays and pointers is the correct 
> way , and it never did me any harm. If the C++ standard has some 
> definiton that suggests a pointer of type pointer-to-X  can only ever 
> point to a single X object and nothing else then I would probably 
> ignore the C++ standard and carry on with the opinion that the 
> comittee had all become brian dead idiots, TBH :)
>

Oh, I'm disappointed to read that.   I was hoping we could come to an
understanding that was rooted in the C/C++ language definitions (the 
standard
documents) but I suppose I'm not able to explain things in a manner that you
agree with.

I'm afraid I will just have to drop things here.

I wish you the best of luck in everything you do.

     - Dave Rivers -

-- 
rivers@dignus.com                        Work: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com