Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays
Date	Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:32:01 +1200
Lines	50
Message-ID	<90mmj2FeeiU11@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com> <90mjc9FkbtU1@mid.individual.net> <io55ve$dac$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	individual.net gd7c0pmnBZauyg3odjoULA/XotBIkmOo8lqFjLxy7zdoJ4EbzE
Cancel-Lock	sha1:Opj1MdI3iyHAmypmWI8jEyfL5VI=
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20101021 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4
In-Reply-To	<io55ve$dac$1@dont-email.me>
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c++:3620

Show key headers only | View raw

On 04/14/11 09:52 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
> * Ian Collins, on 13.04.2011 23:37:
>>
>> One point I don't think has been argued over: when is an array not an
>> array?
>
> One can possibly say that an array of zero size is not an array.
>
> Such an array (or non-array?) can only be allocated dynamically.
>
>
>> If after int* p1 = new int[42]; p pints to an array, what does ++p
>> point to?
>> Another array? If p is a pointer to an array, does incrementing p
>> change it to
>> something else?
>
> You're confusing/conflating two levels of formality, so to speak.

I don't think so.

> Another example of that: a small heap plus a little grain of sand is
> still small, and so on...
>
> If you want a reasonable way to think about it, then (new int[42])+1
> points into an array, and it also points to the start of a sub-array.

Alf, you are inventing new shovels to dig yourself out of a hole!

>> The standard is unambiguous as to what p is:
>>
>> 5.3.4/1:
>>
>> "If it is an array, the new-expression returns a pointer
>> to the initial element of the array."
>
> That's quite a bit ambiguous, for what is the first element of the array
> when the array is of zero size?
>
> But it doesn't really matter.
>
> I only point that out so that you can see that discussing number of
> angels here, and so forth, is of no practical value whatsoever.
> Intelligence must be applied. And then, with some intelligence, nobody
> cares about them angels. ;-)

:)

-- 
Ian Collins

Thread

well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 08:27 -0400
  Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:00 -0700
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:26 -0700
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-13 10:21 -0700
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 11:45 -0400
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 20:57 -0700
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-14 12:40 +0200
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 07:24 -0400
          Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 07:32 -0400
  Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:51 -0700
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 12:00 -0400
  Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-13 20:29 +0200
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 15:35 -0400
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 22:36 +0200
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 17:37 -0400
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-14 02:12 +0200
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 20:23 -0400
  Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:37 +1200
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 17:41 -0400
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-13 17:01 -0700
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 20:25 -0400
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:52 +0200
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 18:19 -0400
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 00:30 +0200
          Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 19:21 -0400
            Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 03:11 +0200
              Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:12 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 06:39 +0200
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-13 17:04 -0700
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology   regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:32 +1200
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology   regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 00:45 +0200
          Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology     regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:54 +1200
  Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-17 22:00 +0100
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-17 19:37 -0400
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 02:54 +0100
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 14:15 +1200
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-17 22:26 -0400
          Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-18 10:57 +0200
            Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 08:31 -0400
              Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 15:00 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 12:19 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 17:49 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 14:18 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 20:56 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 16:20 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 22:09 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 17:22 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 22:36 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 17:43 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 23:47 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 20:59 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-19 11:29 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-19 06:43 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-19 12:24 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 05:52 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 14:28 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 09:36 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 15:29 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 11:00 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 16:15 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 07:15 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 14:03 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 09:22 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 15:10 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 19:28 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 18:31 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 18:44 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 20:04 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 21:42 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays TJorgenson <tjorgenson@infinera.com> - 2011-04-22 14:21 -0700
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 22:24 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 23:47 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 15:56 -0700
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 02:45 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 20:30 -0700
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 05:15 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 17:25 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 06:37 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 12:56 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 20:25 -0700
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-24 13:42 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays TJorgenson <tjorgenson@infinera.com> - 2011-04-22 18:15 -0700
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 03:29 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-19 01:06 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 21:06 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 21:27 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-19 11:23 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-19 06:41 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 01:37 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 05:33 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 13:57 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 09:25 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 17:18 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 14:07 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 22:42 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 17:44 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-21 00:56 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 08:12 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 19:34 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-04-20 16:08 -0700
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 18:41 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 14:37 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 09:33 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 19:09 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 14:36 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 22:53 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 17:49 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 00:52 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 07:21 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 14:24 +0100
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 20:00 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 20:09 +0100
              Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-18 16:08 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 11:08 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-19 01:20 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 21:18 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-19 11:15 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-19 05:40 -0400
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 19:36 +0200
                Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 16:07 -0400
                OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-21 00:31 +0200
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 00:16 -0400
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 09:00 -0400
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 14:12 +0100
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 14:32 +0100
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 09:36 -0400
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 17:54 +0100
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 16:46 -0400
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 23:45 +0100
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 12:02 +0200
                Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 00:56 -0400
    Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 02:40 +0100
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-17 22:31 -0400
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-17 22:47 -0400
        Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 16:54 +0100
          Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 17:00 +0100
            Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 17:17 +0100
          Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 12:26 -0400
      Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 14:38 +1200

csiph-web