Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #5367
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
|---|---|
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| Subject | Re: Problem with array objects |
| References | (3 earlier) <9PDzp.2011$Am5.1296@newsfe05.ams2> <slrnit5drc.1qpu.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> <llUAp.895$Tw4.494@newsfe26.ams2> <slrnitans0.14gr.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> <Y0uBp.5039$ue1.2806@newsfe28.ams2> |
| Message-ID | <slrnitlb8j.1ruu.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> (permalink) |
| Date | 2011-05-23 13:53 -0500 |
On 2011-05-20, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnitans0.14gr.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> On 2011-05-18, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> I'm not confused. pparr is a pointer to an array; pparr has been
>> initialized to &arr; the result of dereferencing pparr is arr. This
>> is just like given the declaration
>>
>> int i, *pi = &i;
>>
>> pi is a pointer to an int; pi has been initialized to &i; the result
>> dereferencing pi is i.
>>
> Its not the same , a single integer is exactly a single integer. An array of
> integers is an array of integers.
> An array of integers cannot be addressed simultaneously, the array can only
> be represented by a type, that is an array-type object, which is what arr
> is.
> This array-type object is basically an object that is stored as a pointer on
> most, if not all, implementations.
That's right, an integer is an integer, and the result of
dereferencing a pointer to an integer is an integer. Similarly, an
array of integers is an array of integers, and the result of
dereferencing a pointer to an array of integers is an array of
integers. I don't know of anything in the C++ standard that
states otherwise.
Given the declaration
int arr[4];
a C++ implementaion creates an array object to represent the array,
but it does not also create an object that stores a pointer to the
array object, unless one is explicitly present, say due to the
declaration
int (*pparr)[4] = &arr;
Due to that statement a C++ implementation creates a pointer to
array object that is initialized to point to the array. The
pointer points directly to the array object.
A few followups ago I posted the code generated by a GNU C++ compiler
to show how an array object and a pointer to an array object were
implemented. I don't know of any compiler that adds an object that
stores a pointer to the array for each array. I don't know of
anything in the C++ standard that requires an object that stores
a pointer to an array for each array. If you do, please provide
details.
>>>>>>> Are you incapable of using a compiler to find this out?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I'm capable. Here is an example program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include <iostream>
>>>>>> #include <typeinfo>
>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>> int arr[4], (*pparr)[4]=&arr;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(arr)"<<
>>>>>> ((typeid(arr)==typeid(*pparr))?"==":"!=")<<
>>>>>> "typeid(*pparr)"<<std::endl;
>>>>>> std::cout<<"&arr"<<((&arr==&(*pparr))?"==":"!=")<<
>>>>>> "&(*pparr)"<<std::endl;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The output I get is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typeid(arr)==typeid(*pparr)
>>>>>> &arr==&(*pparr)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the results of the expressions arr and *pparr have the same type
>>>>>> and the same address; the results are the same object: the array
>>>>>> named arr.
>>>>> Typeid gives a string representation of an object TYPE, not an object.
>>>>> Its not the array of integer objects, its another object. It's an
>>>>> array-TYPE
>>>>> object which decays into a pointer.
>>>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array of integer objects, it
>>>>> accesses another object which decays into a pointer.
>>>>
>>>> The result of typeid(arr), is a std::type_info object representing
>>>> the type of arr. The fact that
>>>>
>>>> typeid(arr)==typeid(*pparr)
>>>>
>>>> indicates that arr and *pparr have the same type.
>>>
>>> This is not telling us what pparr points to , it points to an object, not
>>> a
>>> type, and that object is not a type_info object.
>>
>> According to the C++ standard when typeid is applied to an expression,
>> the result refers to a type_info object representing the type of the
>> expression. The output line
>>
>> typeid(arr)==typeid(*pparr)
>>
>> of the above program indicates that arr and *pparr have the same type.
>> The output line
>>
>> &arr==&(*pparr)
>>
>> of the above program indicates that pparr points to the object named
>> arr.
> I don't need the C++ standard to understand that typeid gives information
> about the TYPE, the name is kinda self explanatory.
> I have told you it's an array-type object on many occassions.
>
> The object pointed to by pparr is an array-type object, that decays into a
> pointer.
Avoiding the term "array-type" that you use but the C++ standard
doesn't: the object pointed to by pparr is an array. The type of
the object pointed to is an array of int. As with all arrays in C++,
in some contexts, array-to-pointer conversion is implicitly applied
and the result of the conversion is a pointer to the first element of
the array.
[snip]
>>>>> The array-type object can only be reperesented in a limited amount of
>>>>> ways :
>>>>> 1) typeinfo represents it as a string in the form of "int[]"
>>>>> 2) sizeof represents this as an integer value.
>>>>> 3) Almost any other operation will cause it to be converted to a
>>>>> pointer,
>>>>> and its value will be an address.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the array-type object is the array named arr. As I
>>>> wrote just above, the value of typeid(arr).name() with the C++
>>>> compiler that I use is "A4_i", which denotes an array of 4 int.
>>>> The value of sizeof(arr) is 16, with the C++ compiler that I use
>>>> the sizeof(int) is 4, making the size of an array of 4 int 16. In
>>>> some contexts array-to-pointer conversion is implicitly applied to
>>>> an array and the result of that conversion is a pointer to the
>>>> first element of the array.
>>>>
>>> The value of sizeof(arr) has nothing to do with the values stored in the
>>> array.
>>
>> I never claimed it did. The value of sizeof(arr) is the number of
>> bytes in the object named arr.
>
> So why have you meantioned sizeof?
> What does that have to do with accessing the array?
I mentioned sizeof because you did in the post I was responding to.
In that posted you wrote (see above):
2) sizeof represents this as an integer value.
> You claim that dereferencing pparr once accesses the array but it doesn't,
> and you are just now trying to obscure the whole argument by introducing
> nonsnese about typeid and sizeof.
As for sizeof, you introduced it (see above). As for typeid, you
asked
What is accessed when you dereference pparr once?
Are you incapable of using a compiler to find this out?
I replied with a program that used typeid to show that
dereferencing a pointer to an array had the same type as using the
identifier of the array pointed to. The program also showed that the
address of the result of dereferencing the pointer was the same as
the address of the array.
When the results of two expressions are the same type and are at the
same address, the two expressions access the object in the same
sense. If the object is an array, they both access the array in the
same sense.
You asked a question, I answered it. Now, I'll ask a question: if
dereferencing pparr and using the identifier do not access an array
in the same sense, what is an expression where using one instead of
the other does not access the array in the same sense?
>>>>> An array-type object is not a figment of my imagination it exists in
>>>>> C++.
>>>>> Why do you refuse to accept that there is such an entity as an
>>>>> array-type
>>>>> object?
>>>>
>>>> I don't accept that there is an array-type object different from the
>>>> array because, as far as I can tell, there is nothing the C++
>>>> standard about there being such an array-type object different from
>>>> the array. If you think there is something in the C++ standard
>>>> about it, please cite the specific paragraphs about an "array-type
>>>> object" different from an array.
>>> I dont need any standard to confirm what is comon sense. Dereferencing
>>> pparr
>>> does not access the array of integer objects, it accesses an array-TYPE
>>> object which is converted to a pointer in most cases.
>>
>> Because we are discussing C++, what matters is what is in the C++
>> standard. The C++ standard specifies requirements for
>> implementations of the C++ programming language. If what is in
>> the C++ standard is different than someone's common sense, what
>> is correct for an implementation of C++ is what is in the standard.
>>
>> The result of dereferencing a pointer to an array is an array. The
>> type of that result is an array type. As with all array results, in
>> some contexts array-to-pointer conversion is applied, and the result
>> of that conversion is a pointer to the first element of the array.
>>
> You refuse to acknowledge that an array has different levels of indirection.
> You seem to think that only one exists.
> The term "array" can mean different things:
> a) An array of integer type objects.
> b) An array type object.
What I think is that in the example code used in these posts:
int arr[4];
arr is an array of integers. A C++ implementation creates an array
object to represent that array. The type of that object is array of
int. "An array of integers type objects" is "An array type object".
> The above have different levels if indirection.
> You only see (b) as an acceptable meaning for "array", which is incorrect
> and narrow minded.
That are no levels of indirection between "An array of integer type
objects" and "An array type object". "An array of integers type
objects" is "An array type object". Given the declaration
int (*pparr)[4] = &arr;
pparr is a level of indirection from arr. The identifier arr is not
a level of indirection from the array.
> A pointer to an "array" of integer objects is a pointer of type int*.
> A pointer to an "array" of array-type objects is a pointer of type int(*)[]
A type int* points to an int, not to an array. The int that is
pointed to may be, but is not necessarily, an element of an array of
int. For example, given
int i; *pi = &i;
pi is of type int* but it does not point to an element of an array of
int.
A type int(*)[] points to an array of int. For example, given
int arr[4]; (*pparr)[] = &arr;
pparr is of type int(*)[]; it points to an array of int.
>>>> In addition, I have posted the assembler file generated by a C++
>>>> compiler for an example program. That assembler file does not
>>>> contain an "array-type object" different from the array. That
>>>> example program and assembler output are also later in this post.
>>>>
>>> What does asm have to do with anything?
>>
>> To someone who understands it, it shows that the example C++
>> program does not contain an array-type object different from the
>> array. I posted the example program to support my claim that
>> there is not an array-type object different from the array.
>>
> You don't seem to understand that, in asm, an array is just a pointer.
In asm, a C++ array is a sequence of the elements of the array. In
the example that I previously gave, for the C++ declaration
int arr[4] = {1,2,3,4};
the assembler output of the compiler contained
.globl _arr
.data
.align 4
_arr:
.long 1
.long 2
.long 3
.long 4
There is no implementation of a pointer object here. There is a
global relocatable symbol named _arr used by the linker.
>>>>>>> You speak utter nonsense, and I am considering ignoring further posts
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> you because of your unreasonableness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not unreasonable. I have answered your questions, both here and
>>>>>> in other posts. I have also responed to questionable statements that
>>>>>> you have made and have given reasons that support my claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are being unreasonable because you cannot accept that dereferencing
>>>>> pparr doesn''t actually access the array but it gives access to an
>>>>> array-type object.
>>>>
>>>> I am being reasonable; I have given the reasons why dereferencing
>>>> pparr accesses an array in the same sense as using the identifier of
>>>> the array. In this case, the array-type object that results from
>>>> dereferencing pparr is the array named arr.
>>> But it doesn't access the array. You cannot access the array of integer
>>> objects by dereferencing pparr once, you MUST dereference it twice.
>>
>> Dereferencing pparr twice accesses the first element of the array.
>> Accessing an element of an array is not the same as accessing the
>> array, because an element of an array and the array have different
>> types.
> You cannot access a whole array simultaneously.
> You can only access a single element.
The result of dereferencing a pointer to an array is an array. You
can do any operation on that result that C++ allows to be done on an
array.
>>>>> All that code you posted above is uneccessary bullshit to try an show
>>>>> things
>>>>> how you want them to appear.
>>>>
>>>> What I have shown is consistent with what is in the C++ standard
>>>> and the behavior of C++ compilers that I have used. You are the
>>>> one who is trying to show things how you want them to appear, such
>>>> as there being an array-type object distinct from the array.
>>>
>>> You have shown nothing but refusal to acknowledge the fact that
>>> dereferencing pparr doesn't access the array.
>>
>> What I have shown supports my claim: "Dereferencing pparr accesses
>> an array in the same sense that using the name arr accesses an
>> array." If you want to claim that they don't both access the
>> array in the same sense, please support your claim, for example by
>> citing paragraph(s) in the C++ standard or with a C++ program.
>>
> Dereferencing pparr once does not access the array, dereferencing it twice
> does.
> Dereferencing arr once does access the array, arr cannot be dereferenced
> twice.
Dereferencing pparr and using the identifier arr access the array
named arr in the same sense. Dereferencing each, that is
dereferencing pparr twice and arr once, actually dereferences the
result of an implicit array-to-pointer conversion on the accessed
array. Because the result of that implicit conversion is a pointer
to the first element of the array, the result of deferencing pparr
twice and arr once is the first element of the array.
>>>> Apparently, you are drawing too close of a parallel between the
>>>> expression
>>>>
>>>> **pparr
>>>
>>> Apparently this has nothing to do with my understanding of the word
>>> "parallel".
>>> Perhaps you have your own meaning for this word.
>>
>> A standard meaning of the word parallel is: "a person or thing that
>> is similar or analogous to another" (from
>> http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0604160#m_en_gb0604160).
>> **pparr is similar to **ppi (in the continuation of what I wrote,
>> below); they both have ** followed by an identifier.
>>
> Sorry but I still don't have a clue what you are talking about.
You wrote: 'Apparently this has nothing to do with my understanding
of the word "parallel".' I responded with a definition of that word
from the Oxford English Dictionary and explained how that definition
applied to what I wrote. I'll pass on the opportunity to comment
about you not having a clue.
>>>> with the declarations
>>>>
>>>> int arr[4], (*pparr)[4] = &arr;
>>>>
>>>> and the expression
>>>>
>>>> **ppi
>>>>
>>>> with the declarations
>>>>
>>>> int i, *pi = &i, **ppi = π
>>>>
>>>> In the latter case there are three objects: i, pi, and ppi. Between
>>>> ppi and i there is an object (named pi) that stores a pointer to int.
>>> There are no objects here there is just your text and it shows only you
>>> cannot accept that dereferencing pparr does not acces the array.
>>
>> According to the C++ standard: an object is created by a definition.
>> The statement
>>
>> int i, *pi = &i, **ppi = π
>>
>> is a definition of three objects, while the statement
>>
>> int arr[4], (*pparr)[4] = &arr;
>>
>> is a definition of two objects.
>
> No its 6 objects.
It is 2 objects with one of them being an array of 4 subobjects. The
point is that there is not another "array-type" object that stores a
pointer to the array.
> And:
> int arr[5]={0};
>
> Is the defintion of one array-type object, and 5 integer objects.
It is a definition of one array object that contains 5 int subojects,
not 5 integers objects that are independent of the array.
>>>> In the former case there are two objects: arr and pparr. Between
>>>> pparr and the int that is the first element of arr there is no
>>>> third object that stores a pointer to an int.
>>>>
>>> Blah blah, you are incorrect.
>>
>> On my, a claim about me being incorrect without any supporting
>> reasons. That is a difference between us, I support my claims, such
>> as with above example of the difference between **pparr and **ppi.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> On my, its not a claim its a fact.
Someone being incorrect is not a fact unless the claim is supported
with evidence. What is the evidence that between pparr and the int
that is the first element of arr there is a third object that stores
a pointer to an int?
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-10 12:31 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-10 22:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-12 12:19 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-13 09:54 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-14 11:20 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 23:59 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-17 12:59 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-18 19:36 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-19 13:20 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-20 14:29 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-23 13:53 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-23 22:53 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-23 23:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-23 23:19 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 02:26 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 13:16 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 14:58 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 15:05 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 17:39 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 17:58 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 21:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 21:11 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 00:12 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 00:33 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 11:39 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 12:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 12:56 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 13:15 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 16:36 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 16:47 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 17:15 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 17:39 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 21:09 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 22:24 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 01:28 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-25 09:57 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 16:50 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-25 12:01 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 16:59 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-25 12:56 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 21:46 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-25 20:02 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 01:37 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-26 09:08 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 15:19 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-26 14:45 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 21:02 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-27 09:34 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 14:46 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-27 15:07 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 21:42 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-27 19:34 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 01:24 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-28 10:58 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 19:41 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-28 20:38 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 12:32 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-29 10:05 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 20:13 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-29 19:38 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 17:01 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 17:44 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 03:11 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-28 19:21 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 12:50 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-05-29 07:21 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 15:30 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 20:43 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 21:51 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 03:08 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 20:29 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 23:11 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-25 08:15 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 22:23 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 17:01 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 11:48 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 04:06 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 13:50 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-25 19:03 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-25 12:44 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 21:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-25 22:20 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 11:00 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 12:07 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 13:09 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 09:32 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 11:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 23:07 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 13:22 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 14:14 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 15:27 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 15:52 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 16:45 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 17:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 17:41 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 07:44 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 21:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:05 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 00:15 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 11:32 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 01:39 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 01:56 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 13:18 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 11:06 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 22:28 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 12:51 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 13:58 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 14:34 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 15:14 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 15:18 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 15:24 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 15:31 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 15:53 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 16:18 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 20:35 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 21:23 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 22:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 22:15 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 00:40 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 00:53 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 01:32 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 01:49 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 13:17 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 03:29 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 15:35 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 12:24 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 08:21 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 22:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 09:17 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 09:32 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 22:58 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-29 10:06 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 23:51 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 03:20 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 12:34 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 12:56 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 13:49 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 14:48 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 15:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 19:35 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 19:59 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 20:17 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 20:44 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 21:00 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 22:07 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-26 14:38 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-26 21:15 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-27 12:43 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-27 20:20 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-28 11:41 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-28 19:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 15:56 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-11 12:25 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-11 10:56 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-11 14:09 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-12 13:31 +0100
csiph-web