Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Ian Collins Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Once again Ian Collins is incorrect Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:28:39 +1200 Lines: 30 Message-ID: <91jthoF820U2@mid.individual.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net ueQePJw/YGcR8Umo5of8gQfFIm/nZtGqmMfKZ+bJwS+ad2KfuI Cancel-Lock: sha1:eK83RM1On/+o5aPRU4Lu5tbuaWc= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20101021 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:4329 On 04/25/11 11:59 AM, Paul wrote: > In a recent discussion about a pointer to an array in the form of, int > (*pparr)[N]. The object that is a result of dereferencing such a pointer is > an array-type object. As usual, Paul starts a smokescreen thread after loosing an argument. He started by claiming the statement "Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr accesses an array". was false and ended up contradicting him self nicely: > On 04/25/11 11:46 AM, Paul wrote: >> "Ian Collins" wrote: >>> (*pparr) and arr have the same type. So whatever applies to one, applies to the other. >> I told you they had the same type >> Under no circumstances can dereferencing pparr access the array in the same way as arr I'll leave it at that. Sorry to impose yet another Paul thread on the group. -- Ian Collins