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

From	cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays
Date	2011-04-17 19:37 -0400
Message-ID	<o7tmq69tdrldupq4cap724g7cskr96ojbv@4ax.com> (permalink)
References	<q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com> <iyIqp.27791$KZ7.16@newsfe08.ams2>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:00:52 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com...
>> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even 
>> if, it
>> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or 
>> casual
>> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays.
>>
>> Examples such as:
>>   int a[42];
>>   int* p2 = a;
>a is an array.
>p2 is a pointer to the array.
as others have said, you've failed to grasp the subtle yet significant
difference between "is a pointer to" and "points to".

There is no valid context, technical or otherwise, to make the statement that an
int pointer "is a pointer to" an array.

>
>> apparently create huge debates about how to describe the above 
>> expressions.
>
>>
>> Similar examples include expressions like:
>> int* p1 = new int[42];
>
>p1 is a pointer to a dynamic array.
same comment, see above.

Not to mention that the Standard explicitly contradicts you. 5.3.4/5

>
>>
>> I gleen two cases representing the major divisions of opinion in this 
>> matter and
>> I happen to not agree entirely with either.
>>
>> 1) Nobody is actually saying that the int pointers p1 and p2 do not point 
>> to the
>> initial element of an array, but more than one has expressed that it is 
>> silly to
>> put it that way.
>They point-to both the initial elelment of the array and also the array.
>
>>
>> 2) More than one has said that it is "generally acceptable" to say that 
>> the
>> above expressions are both int pointers that point to arrays.
>
>Its a technical fact that both pointers point to arrays.
Technical facts presume some valid C++ context and has Standard definition to
back them up.  What is your reference to the Standard that proves such a thing?

>
>>
>> My thoughts are:
>>
>> In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is it really ever silly to say 
>> that an
>> int* points to the initial element of an array of int when it is 
>> well-defined to
>> do so?
>> No.
>>
>> It is not silly because widely recognized C++ sources say it just that 
>> way.
>> 1) The C++ Programming Language, Bjarne Stroustrup section 5.3 Pointers 
>> into
>> Arrays
>> 2) Accelerated C++, Andrew Koenig 10.1.3 Arrays (last paragraph, second
>> sentence)
>> 3) ISO/IEC 14882 5.3.4 New (paragraph 1, last two senctences)
>>
>> In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is what is claimed to be 
>> "generally
>> acceptable" (the statement that an int* points to an array) ever truly
>> technically correct?
>> No.
>>
>> If the discussion is about "pointer to T" then it is both inaccurate and
>> irresponsible to say that an int* points to an array.  Only in the most 
>> casual
>> and general sense is this statement acceptable and only when the 
>> discussion is
>> not about "pointer to T".
>
>I don't know what you are babbling on about , if a pointer points-to an 
>array then it points-to an array.
I believe you when you say that "you don't know".  I realize you cannot see any
of the subtle distinctions involving your inane perspectives.

>You are obviously trying to suggest it doesn't but it does.
You obviously make assumptions without knowing the facts.

What I do suggest is that there is no valid context, technical or otherwise, to
make the statement that an int pointer "is a pointer to" an array.

>
>
>>
>> Does case #2 from above hold up under this pointer defintion?
>
>What pointer definition?
>YOU don't define pointers.
and you do not read posts before you respond to them.  You certainly have failed
to comprehend some of the greater points which came from this discussion that
came from both sides of the debate.

Unfortunately your side is erroneous on all accounts, but that is no
significance since you are one individual with a uniquely wrong perspective.

see the very next line to which this statement refers.
I do not need to define pointers, I merely provide a well-definition for them,
>
>
>>
>> From "The C++ Programming Language"
>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type 
>> T* can
>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>> No.
>>
>> Is there any well-defined pointer definition that agrees with the 
>> assertion that
>> an int* points to an array?
>> None that I am aware.
>>
>> I ask that if anybody knows of one to please feel free to add it to this
>> discussion.
>>
>> As my closing thought, I do not impose "lawyeresque verbiage" onto those 
>> that
>> choose loose terminology in general discussions.
>You won't because you can't.
>You do not define the C++ language.
I do not need to.  It is already well-defined.

>
>> I do, however, make the very
>> important disctinction that there is a time to be "general" and a time to 
>> be
>> "technically precise".  For the case of a C++ discussion about "pointer to 
>> T"
>> then the time is not to be general, but rather, and simply put, 
>> technically
>> precise.
>>
>Yes and it is time to be precise and end your nonsensical ideas that a 
>pointer to an array does not point-to an array.
Pointers to arrays do point to arrays. Pointers to int do not. 
You have repeatedly failed to recognize this fact in all contexts of discussion
that you have attempted to weigh in on.

>
>The following has been said by Bjarne Stroustrup and it is clearly stated in 
>the C faq's. If you disagree with this then I think you are more likely to 
>be incorrect than the source of this.
>"A char* can point to a single char or an array of chars."
and in that context he is not saying that a char* "is a pointer to" an array of
characters.  Once again you fail to make the distinction.  Besides the glossary
definition does not supercede his well-definition:

For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type T* can
hold the address of an object of type T.

>
>Clearly you disgree with this. Thats fine by me and I don't really care if 
>you think its wrong but I am happy to accept it as correct as it agrees with 
>my thoughts on pointers.
I disagree with you and I am completely correct in doing so.  Additionally,
everybody that has weighed in on this discussion disagrees with you too.
You are alone.

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