Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #2800 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-03-29 12:27 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-04-11 14:27 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 404 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-03-29 12:27 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 00:03 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-03-30 12:39 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 20:42 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-03-31 12:38 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 19:28 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-01 12:40 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-02 02:33 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-04 12:42 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-04 20:12 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-04 16:31 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-05 12:39 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-05 19:13 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-05 20:16 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Garrett Hartshaw <ghartshaw@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 01:36 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 10:32 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-06 12:20 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 18:42 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-06 14:47 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 23:51 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-07 09:44 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-07 12:28 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-07 21:39 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-07 18:16 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 01:14 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-07 23:03 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 08:48 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-08 04:15 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-08 12:39 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 21:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-09 13:15 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-09 20:32 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-09 22:05 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-10 03:44 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-09 23:07 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-10 13:32 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-10 10:15 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-10 18:29 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-10 17:55 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-11 12:40 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-11 22:07 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-12 12:51 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 19:53 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-13 12:32 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 14:02 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-14 12:53 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 19:17 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-15 12:25 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 11:07 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-16 08:02 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 22:21 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 14:22 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 23:01 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-16 10:10 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 23:24 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson) - 2011-04-15 21:48 +0000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 23:16 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 19:05 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-18 12:44 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 21:35 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-19 13:46 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 17:29 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-23 12:59 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 20:31 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-24 09:26 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-24 00:04 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-24 11:24 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-24 02:16 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-24 14:10 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-24 04:37 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-24 16:11 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-24 13:31 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-24 17:57 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-24 17:39 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:19 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:12 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-25 00:46 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:59 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 05:01 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:56 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-25 10:57 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-26 12:36 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-26 22:42 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-27 12:53 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-27 19:06 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-27 20:09 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-04-29 12:57 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-29 19:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-29 19:56 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-02 13:20 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-02 22:43 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-05 14:13 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 22:21 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-06 10:49 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 12:29 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-07 11:34 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-08 04:05 +0100
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 Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-05-31 09:45 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 20:33 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-06-01 09:57 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 15:53 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 16:46 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 19:44 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 19:59 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 21:41 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:39 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:21 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:32 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-06-01 12:33 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 19:18 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 19:38 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 20:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 20:18 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:01 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:25 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:43 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:49 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:27 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 00:26 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 00:33 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 08:52 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-06-01 15:37 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 07:46 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 21:22 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-01 10:31 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:10 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:28 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:59 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:05 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:35 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-02 10:51 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 00:28 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 16:33 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 09:03 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 01:23 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-06-02 17:31 +0900
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 01:39 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-01 11:28 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:54 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-01 12:08 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:41 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:17 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:17 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:32 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:58 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 16:31 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 08:50 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 21:05 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-06-01 16:38 -0400
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:20 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 14:42 -0700
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 Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-05-30 17:39 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 06:05 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-05-31 09:38 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 20:50 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:23 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 13:29 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2011-05-31 15:17 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 20:43 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-05-31 02:43 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 14:38 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 20:45 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 21:11 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 10:23 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 03:08 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 15:59 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 13:45 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 14:23 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 16:02 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 16:33 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 19:52 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 20:02 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-01 09:16 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 21:00 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-01 10:09 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 22:31 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-01 11:58 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:21 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> - 2011-06-01 16:22 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 00:48 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> - 2011-06-02 11:06 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 19:58 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> - 2011-06-02 13:28 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-03 01:16 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> - 2011-06-02 18:51 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects PaulR <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-03 04:59 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 23:21 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 14:46 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-06-01 00:46 -0700
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 "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-05-31 12:26 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 20:49 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-01 12:46 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-02 12:36 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-02 20:23 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-02 10:34 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-03 01:41 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-02 16:06 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-02 16:12 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-02 16:21 -1000
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-03 14:17 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-06-04 10:34 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-06-04 10:45 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-04 21:02 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-06-04 14:11 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-04 22:35 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-06-04 15:43 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-05 06:39 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-05 07:55 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 11:14 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 21:08 +1200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-03 14:25 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-06-04 10:52 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-04 19:52 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-06-05 13:48 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-05 14:52 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Thomas J. Gritzan" <phygon_antispam@gmx.de> - 2011-06-05 18:03 +0200
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-05 19:23 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-05 14:49 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-03 12:37 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-03 19:49 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-04 11:46 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-04 18:42 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-06 14:27 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 14:04 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 14:04 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-07 02:26 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-06-06 23:30 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-07 13:13 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-06-08 01:20 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-08 11:39 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-08 17:03 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-08 23:51 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-11 11:41 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-12 00:56 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-14 13:44 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-14 23:01 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-16 13:41 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-16 23:01 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-18 12:23 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-18 19:50 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-21 13:38 -0500
Re: Problem with array objects "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-22 00:29 +0100
Re: Problem with array objects Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-06-18 12:58 -0700
Re: Problem with array objects "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> - 2011-06-21 13:40 -0500
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
Re: Problem with array objects Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 14:27 -0700
Page 12 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 21 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 20:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmxEp.16186$2E6.5004@newsfe18.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5802 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Kr2dnV7lH7QExX_QnZ2dnUVZ7sCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 29/05/2011 15:21, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On May 29, 2:50 pm, "Paul"<pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "Öö Tiib"<oot...@hot.ee> wrote in message
>>>> --His reason for believing so is one part of the C++ standard which
>>>> --mentions that array objects are not modifiable.
>>>
>>>> No you are incorrect. My opinion that the object 'arr' and the 5
>>>> contiguous
>>>> integer objects are different entites is bases on the fact that they
>>>> contain
>>>> contain different values.
>>>
>>>> in the following code:
>>>> int arr[5]={0};
>>>> std::cout<< arr;
>>>> std::cout<< arr[0];
>>>
>>>> The value accessed by arr is not any value that is stored within the 5
>>>> contiguous integer objects.
>>>> If 'arr' was truly the same as the 5 integer objects then it would
>>>> store
>>>> the
>>>> same value.
>>>
>>> --Of course, arr stores all of them 5 integer objects. It is array after
>>> --all. Your example does not show it since ostream is not made to
>>> --display whole arrays. ostream can display a void* and that is into
>>> --what any array converts to as soon someone coughs at it (bloody legacy
>>> --from C). But we can help ostream out easily to accept int arrays too.
>>> --See:
>>>
>>> --#include<iostream>
>>>
>>> --/// Helping poor ostream to output int arrays
>>> -- template<int N>
>>> -- std::ostream& operator<<( std::ostream& o, int const (& a)[N] )
>>> -- {
>>> -- o<< "{";
>>> -- for ( int i = 0; i< N; ++i )
>>> -- {
>>> -- o<< a[i];
>>> -- if ( i< N-1 ) o<< ",";
>>> -- }
>>> -- o<< "}";
>>> -- return o;
>>> -- }
>>> --
>>> -- int main()
>>> -- {
>>> -- // Pauls code
>>> -- int arr[5]={0};
>>> -- std::cout<< "arr ="<< arr<< std::endl;
>>> -- std::cout<< "arr[0] ="<< arr[0]<< std::endl;
>>> -- // that is what arr converted to without our operator
>>> -- std::cout<< "&arr[0] = "<< &arr[0]<< std::endl;
>>> -- }
>>>
>>> --The output is:
>>>
>>> --arr = {0,0,0,0,0}
>>> --arr[0] = 0
>>> --&arr[0] = 0012FF50
>>>
>>> -- arr is still array of 5 ints. Can't be Paul you are arguing even
>>> --against that?
>>>
>>> The problem is not just ostream operator<< , its every operator in the
>>> C++
>>> language.
>>
>> Yes. Lot of smart people have felt that it is a problem and made
>> classes to wrap raw arrays so to get rid of it in C++. Usage of raw
>> arrays in real C++ production code is relatively low these days.
>>
>>> The identifier 'arr' is evaluated as an addresss in almost all
>>> situations
>>> except typeid and sizeof:
>>> int* p= arr; //This works
>>> int x = arr; //This does not work
>>
>> The 'p = arr' works, thanks to implicit arr to&arr[0] conversion. My
>> template above does not accept 'p' as int array argument anymore since
>> it is a true raw pointer unlike 'arr'. 'p' goes to cout as usual
>> void*. The 'x = arr' should indeed not to work because assigning whole
>> array to single int does not make sense.
>>
>>> Also consider this :
>>> template<typename T>
>>> void foo(T t){
>>> std::cout<< typeid(t).name();}
>>>
>>> foo(arr);
>>> Given a free choice arr is passed as a pointer and not a reference.
>>
>> Yes. That is because C did not have references, so there were only two
>> ways to pass arrays in C (1) as pointer to first element (+ size as
>> separate argument) or (2) as member of struct. Both ways are indirect.
>> So the C designer's felt that writing '&arr[0]' everytime they needed
>> a pointer to first element of array too verbose syntax. C++ did not
>> change that because one of objectives of C++ is making migrating from
>> C to C++ as painless as possible and that is achieved by making most C
>> code to compile with C++ compiler.
>>
>>> The identifier 'arr' does not behave like identifiers to other objects
>>> in
>>> C++ it is somewhat special.
>>> I can agree that it is a non modifiable array-type object. But it does
>>> not
>>> identify an array in the same sense that other objects' names identify
>>> them,
>>> it indirectly identifies the array, because it must be dereferenced to
>>> access the array of objects that it identifies.
>>
>> Yes, the pointer to what array implicitly converts (as it only can)
>> indirectly identifies the array. However array itself is located in
>> memory exactly where it's elements are, starting from first element.
>> Consider the code:
>>
>> int arr[5]={0};
>> std::cout<< "&arr[0] = "<< &arr[0]<< std::endl;
>> std::cout<< "&arr = "<< &arr<< std::endl;
>>
>> By language rules the address of first element of array and address of
>> array itself are same. So arr is object consisting of 5 ints and not a
>> separate pointer-like object (residing in memory elsewhere) that
>> points to the ints.
>
> Well said Öö Tiib, just to make it absolutely clear if the following
> assertion doesn't shut Paul up then there is no hope for him:
>
> assert((void*)&arr[0] == (void*)&arr);
>
> There is no special hidden object containing the address of the array as
> this assertion proves.
>
There is no special hidden objects in arrays.
An array is simply a sequence of objects in memory.
A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*.
A pointer to a single array object, of the given type, is of type int
(*)[n].
A pointer to an array of arrays is also of type int(*)[n].
A pointer to an array of T's is of type T*.
A pointer of type T (*)[n] is not a direct pointer to an array of T's , it
points to an objectional representation of an array of Ts', not to the array
of T's directly.
A 2D array is an array of 1D arrays.
The pointer type T(*)[n] is a pointer to a 2D array , for example:
int arr[4][5];
int(*p)[5] = arr;
The term "array" means a sequence of objects. You cannot point to these
objects without actually pointing to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <S4adnVSluPkhLH_QnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5812 |
On 29/05/2011 20:43, Paul wrote: [snip] > A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. [snip] HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 03:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <R4YEp.24064$A05.13933@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5813 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:S4adnVSluPkhLH_QnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com... > On 29/05/2011 20:43, Paul wrote: > > [snip] > >> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. > > Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. > > [snip] > No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of integers as shown : int* p_arr= new int[66]; In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element of the array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-30 17:39 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011053017391493970-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #5861 |
On 2011-05-30 16:08:47 -1000, Paul said: > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:S4adnVSluPkhLH_QnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 29/05/2011 20:43, Paul wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >> >> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >> >> [snip] >> > No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of > integers as shown : > > int* p_arr= new int[66]; > > In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with > the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element > of the array. In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to (wait for it...) an int. -- Pete Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 06:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ZG_Ep.33734$%o4.14293@newsfe16.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5870 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011053017391493970-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-05-30 16:08:47 -1000, Paul said: > >> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:S4adnVSluPkhLH_QnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 29/05/2011 20:43, Paul wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >>> >>> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >> No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of integers >> as shown : >> >> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >> >> In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with the >> subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element of the >> array. > > In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the > value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to (wait > for it...) an int. > In the expression : int* p_arr= new int[66]; the pointer points to an array of integers, not a single integer. Yes you could say that the pointer only points to one single integer, but it also points to the array of integers. To suggest that it points to one single integer and only one single integer is incorrect, narrow minded and ignorant of the fact that it actually points to an array of integers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 09:38 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011053109382252743-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #5885 |
On 2011-05-30 19:05:59 -1000, Paul said: > "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > news:2011053017391493970-pete@versatilecodingcom... >> On 2011-05-30 16:08:47 -1000, Paul said: >> >>> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:S4adnVSluPkhLH_QnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 29/05/2011 20:43, Paul wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >>>> >>>> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>> No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of >>> integers as shown : >>> >>> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >>> >>> In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with >>> the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element >>> of the array. >> >> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the >> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to >> (wait for it...) an int. >> > > In the expression : > int* p_arr= new int[66]; > the pointer points to an array of integers, not a single integer. > > Yes you could say that the pointer only points to one single integer, > but it also points to the array of integers. > To suggest that it points to one single integer and only one single > integer is incorrect, narrow minded and ignorant of the fact that it > actually points to an array of integers. Can you say "straw man"? There, I knew you could. -- Pete Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <yEbFp.20309$ue1.10375@newsfe28.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5917 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011053109382252743-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-05-30 19:05:59 -1000, Paul said: > >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>> No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of >>>> integers as shown : >>>> >>>> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >>>> >>>> In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with >>>> the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element >>>> of the array. >>> >>> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the >>> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to >>> (wait for it...) an int. >>> >> >> In the expression : >> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >> the pointer points to an array of integers, not a single integer. >> >> Yes you could say that the pointer only points to one single integer, but >> it also points to the array of integers. >> To suggest that it points to one single integer and only one single >> integer is incorrect, narrow minded and ignorant of the fact that it >> actually points to an array of integers. > > Can you say "straw man"? There, I knew you could. > I'm sorry I do not understand you , is this something similar to the wicker man?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 02:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0a98e0b-7e52-4d0d-a03a-0863241769b7@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5870 |
On 31 Mai, 05:39, Pete Becker wrote: > Paul said: > > [...] > > In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T Keep in mind that "pointer to a single..." has a special meaning for Paul. While for you (and everybody else except Paul) "single" here means the type of the pointer is T* as opposed to T(*)[N] for N>1. For Paul the pointer type is always T* and "pointer to a single..." describes some runtime state, that is, the pointer's value is currently the address of a single object that is NOT part of a multi-element array. > can be used to access the > value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. Sure. But given Paul's understanding of "pointer to single..." any index other than zero would be illegal. For indices other than zero the pointer would have to be a "pointer to an array" (to use this words ... which can be translated to "pointer to an element of an array" in proper-speak). > A pointer to int points to (wait for it...) an int. Sure it does. What people need to realize is that Paul is stuck in a certain mindset. In this mindset "pointing to..." and a pointer expression's type don't correlate much. This becomes obvious with his broken finger/banana/bunch-of-bananas analogy (broken because a finger has no type w.r.t. what it can point to). Especially the "an array is just a pointer [with additional magical type info w.r.t. array size]"- way-of-thinking is what makes his mental model of arrays and pointers more complicated than it has to be. Different mental model. Different terminology. And any attempt to make him understand this proved to be futile. I'm actually surprized that people still respond to him. It's all been said before. So, if anyone feels like responding to him, please check what kind of responses he got in the past, how he reacted to them and reevaluate whether a response would be time well-spent. Cheers! SG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 13:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ua5Fp.25171$A05.5599@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5893 |
"SG" <s.gesemann@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b0a98e0b-7e52-4d0d-a03a-0863241769b7@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > On 31 Mai, 05:39, Pete Becker wrote: >> Paul said: >> > [...] >> >> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T > > Keep in mind that "pointer to a single..." has a special meaning for > Paul. While for you (and everybody else except Paul) "single" here > means the type of the pointer is T* > as opposed to T(*)[N] for N>1. For Paul the pointer type is always T* > and "pointer to a single..." describes some runtime state, that is, > the pointer's value is currently the address of a single object that > is NOT part of a multi-element array. > >> can be used to access the >> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. > > Sure. But given Paul's understanding of "pointer to single..." any > index other than zero would be illegal. For indices other than zero > the pointer would have to be a "pointer to an array" (to use this > words ... which can be translated to "pointer to an element of an > array" in proper-speak). > >> A pointer to int points to (wait for it...) an int. > > Sure it does. What people need to realize is that Paul is stuck in a > certain mindset. In this mindset "pointing to..." and a pointer > expression's type don't correlate much. This becomes obvious with his > broken finger/banana/bunch-of-bananas analogy (broken because a finger > has no type w.r.t. what it can point to). Especially the "an array is > just a pointer [with additional magical type info w.r.t. array size]"- > way-of-thinking is what makes his mental model of arrays and pointers > more complicated than it has to be. Different mental model. Different > terminology. And any attempt to make him understand this proved to be > futile. I'm actually surprized that people still respond to him. It's > all been said before. > There is nothing broken about the banana analogy. Another example is a box of strawberries, if you point to a strawberry in a box , you canot do so without also pointing at the box of strawberries. To say you are pointing at strawberry#51, for example, is simply being specific about which strawberry you are pointing too, you are also pointing at the box of strawberries when you point to strawberry51. std::string strawberries[120]; strawberries[51] = "tasty"; std::string* p_strawberries = strawberries; std::string strawberry = strawberries[51];
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred Zwarts \(KVI\)" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 15:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <is2pq2$kpf$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #5897 |
"Paul" wrote in message news:Ua5Fp.25171$A05.5599@newsfe13.ams2... >"SG" <s.gesemann@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:b0a98e0b-7e52-4d0d-a03a-0863241769b7@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... >> On 31 Mai, 05:39, Pete Becker wrote: >>> Paul said: >>> > [...] >>> >>> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T >> >> Keep in mind that "pointer to a single..." has a special meaning for >> Paul. While for you (and everybody else except Paul) "single" here >> means the type of the pointer is T* >> as opposed to T(*)[N] for N>1. For Paul the pointer type is always T* >> and "pointer to a single..." describes some runtime state, that is, >> the pointer's value is currently the address of a single object that >> is NOT part of a multi-element array. >> >>> can be used to access the >>> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. >> >> Sure. But given Paul's understanding of "pointer to single..." any >> index other than zero would be illegal. For indices other than zero >> the pointer would have to be a "pointer to an array" (to use this >> words ... which can be translated to "pointer to an element of an >> array" in proper-speak). >> >>> A pointer to int points to (wait for it...) an int. >> >> Sure it does. What people need to realize is that Paul is stuck in a >> certain mindset. In this mindset "pointing to..." and a pointer >> expression's type don't correlate much. This becomes obvious with his >> broken finger/banana/bunch-of-bananas analogy (broken because a finger >> has no type w.r.t. what it can point to). Especially the "an array is >> just a pointer [with additional magical type info w.r.t. array size]"- >> way-of-thinking is what makes his mental model of arrays and pointers >> more complicated than it has to be. Different mental model. Different >> terminology. And any attempt to make him understand this proved to be >> futile. I'm actually surprized that people still respond to him. It's >> all been said before. >> >There is nothing broken about the banana analogy. > >Another example is a box of strawberries, if you point to a strawberry in a >box , you canot do so without also pointing at the box of strawberries. To >say you are pointing at strawberry#51, for example, is simply being >specific about which strawberry you are pointing too, you are also pointing >at the box of strawberries when you point to strawberry51. That is not the general consensus. If someone is called as a witness in a crime court and they show him a group of 5 people and ask him to tell which of them he has seen at the location of the crime. Then, if he only points his finger, the case is not yet clear. Because the pointer is untyped. But if the witness says, "that’s him", the pointer become typed. No one will say that it is not conclusive, because he was pointing to the whole group. Similarly, if you point to strawberry#51 and say "That strawberry is rotten", nobody will assume that the whole box is rotten.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 20:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wxbFp.24379$UY3.6108@newsfe20.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5900 |
"Fred Zwarts (KVI)" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> wrote in message news:is2pq2$kpf$1@news.albasani.net... "Paul" wrote in message news:Ua5Fp.25171$A05.5599@newsfe13.ams2... >"SG" <s.gesemann@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:b0a98e0b-7e52-4d0d-a03a-0863241769b7@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... >> On 31 Mai, 05:39, Pete Becker wrote: >>> Paul said: >>> > [...] >>> >>> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T >> >> Keep in mind that "pointer to a single..." has a special meaning for >> Paul. While for you (and everybody else except Paul) "single" here >> means the type of the pointer is T* >> as opposed to T(*)[N] for N>1. For Paul the pointer type is always T* >> and "pointer to a single..." describes some runtime state, that is, >> the pointer's value is currently the address of a single object that >> is NOT part of a multi-element array. >> >>> can be used to access the >>> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. >> >> Sure. But given Paul's understanding of "pointer to single..." any >> index other than zero would be illegal. For indices other than zero >> the pointer would have to be a "pointer to an array" (to use this >> words ... which can be translated to "pointer to an element of an >> array" in proper-speak). >> >>> A pointer to int points to (wait for it...) an int. >> >> Sure it does. What people need to realize is that Paul is stuck in a >> certain mindset. In this mindset "pointing to..." and a pointer >> expression's type don't correlate much. This becomes obvious with his >> broken finger/banana/bunch-of-bananas analogy (broken because a finger >> has no type w.r.t. what it can point to). Especially the "an array is >> just a pointer [with additional magical type info w.r.t. array size]"- >> way-of-thinking is what makes his mental model of arrays and pointers >> more complicated than it has to be. Different mental model. Different >> terminology. And any attempt to make him understand this proved to be >> futile. I'm actually surprized that people still respond to him. It's >> all been said before. >> >There is nothing broken about the banana analogy. > >Another example is a box of strawberries, if you point to a strawberry in a >box , you canot do so without also pointing at the box of strawberries. To >say you are pointing at strawberry#51, for example, is simply being >specific about which strawberry you are pointing too, you are also pointing >at the box of strawberries when you point to strawberry51. That is not the general consensus. If someone is called as a witness in a crime court and they show him a group of 5 people and ask him to tell which of them he has seen at the location of the crime. Then, if he only points his finger, the case is not yet clear. Because the pointer is untyped. But if the witness says, "that’s him", the pointer become typed. No one will say that it is not conclusive, because he was pointing to the whole group. Similarly, if you point to strawberry#51 and say "That strawberry is rotten", nobody will assume that the whole box is rotten. ------------------------------------ If you cannot speak logic STFU.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 02:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c8ee538-ef3e-4b11-b7d8-f5fad525f1e4@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5870 |
On 31 mai, 05:39, Pete Becker <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote: > On 2011-05-30 16:08:47 -1000, Paul said: > > > > > > > > > > > "Leigh Johnston" <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:S4adnVSluPkhLH_QnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com... > >> On 29/05/2011 20:43, Paul wrote: > > >> [snip] > > >>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. > > >> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. > > >> [snip] > > > No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of > > integers as shown : > > > int* p_arr= new int[66]; > > > In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with > > the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element > > of the array. > > In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the > value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to > (wait for it...) an int. Well, to be totally fair, there is one occurrence where this is not true: int* p = new int[0]; p points to an array with no elements and p doesn't point to an int. -- Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 14:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oaadnQV-ZuTtcnnQnZ2dnUVZ8n2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5894 |
On 31/05/2011 10:43, Michael Doubez wrote: > On 31 mai, 05:39, Pete Becker<p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote: >> On 2011-05-30 16:08:47 -1000, Paul said: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> "Leigh Johnston"<le...@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:S4adnVSluPkhLH_QnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 29/05/2011 20:43, Paul wrote: >> >>>> [snip] >> >>>>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >> >>>> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >> >>>> [snip] >> >>> No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of >>> integers as shown : >> >>> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >> >>> In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with >>> the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element >>> of the array. >> >> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the >> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to >> (wait for it...) an int. > > Well, to be totally fair, there is one occurrence where this is not > true: > > int* p = new int[0]; > > p points to an array with no elements and p doesn't point to an int. 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even if it is not *pointing to* an 'int'. Also: int* p = 0; 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even though it is not *pointing to* an 'int'. Subtle but important terminology. One term describes a compile time concept whilst the other term describes a runtime concept. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 20:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3AbFp.33389$6K4.4119@newsfe14.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5901 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:oaadnQV->>>>> [snip] >>> >>>>>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >>> >>>>> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >>> >>>>> [snip] >>> >>>> No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of >>>> integers as shown : >>> >>>> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >>> >>>> In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with >>>> the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element >>>> of the array. >>> >>> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the >>> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to >>> (wait for it...) an int. >> >> Well, to be totally fair, there is one occurrence where this is not >> true: >> >> int* p = new int[0]; >> >> p points to an array with no elements and p doesn't point to an int. > > 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even if it is not *pointing to* an > 'int'. No you are an idiot. 'p''s type has nothing to do with what it points to. > > Also: > > int* p = 0; > > 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even though it is not *pointing to* > an 'int'. No you are confused between what it's type is and what it points to. > > Subtle but important terminology. One term describes a compile time > concept whilst the other term describes a runtime concept. > Subtle but important terminology includes the word "type". You are an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 21:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cIWdnQE4Fusc1njQnZ2dnUVZ8nWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5920 |
On 31/05/2011 20:45, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:oaadnQV->>>>> > [snip] >>>> >>>>>>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >>>> >>>>>> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of >>>>> integers as shown : >>>> >>>>> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >>>> >>>>> In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with >>>>> the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element >>>>> of the array. >>>> >>>> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the >>>> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to >>>> (wait for it...) an int. >>> >>> Well, to be totally fair, there is one occurrence where this is not >>> true: >>> >>> int* p = new int[0]; >>> >>> p points to an array with no elements and p doesn't point to an int. >> >> 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even if it is not *pointing to* >> an 'int'. > > No you are an idiot. 'p''s type has nothing to do with what it points to. The confusion is all yours as you cannot accept that a pointer of type 'int*' can never point to an array; it can only ever point to an 'int' object (or no object at all). If a pointer of type 'int*' is pointing to the first element of an 'int' array then that pointer can be passed to delete[] to deallocate the array. >> >> Also: >> >> int* p = 0; >> >> 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even though it is not *pointing >> to* an 'int'. > > No you are confused between what it's type is and what it points to. Again the confusion is all yours. Here the type of 'p' is "pointer to an int" however it is not (at runtime) pointing to an 'int' object. > >> >> Subtle but important terminology. One term describes a compile time >> concept whilst the other term describes a runtime concept. >> > Subtle but important terminology includes the word "type". You are an > idiot. "Types" only exist at compile time (ignoring RTTI) so are the "compile time concept" I was referring to; objects on the other hand only exist at runtime so are the "runtime concept" I was referring to. Pay attention. Again with the insults; your "debating" skills are amazing. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 10:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kynFp.21023$ue1.2128@newsfe28.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5923 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:cIWdnQE4Fusc1njQnZ2dnUVZ8nWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 31/05/2011 20:45, Paul wrote: >> >> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:oaadnQV->>>>> >> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>>>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >>>>> >>>>>>> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >>>>> >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>> No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of >>>>>> integers as shown : >>>>> >>>>>> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >>>>> >>>>>> In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with >>>>>> the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth element >>>>>> of the array. >>>>> >>>>> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access the >>>>> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to >>>>> (wait for it...) an int. >>>> >>>> Well, to be totally fair, there is one occurrence where this is not >>>> true: >>>> >>>> int* p = new int[0]; >>>> >>>> p points to an array with no elements and p doesn't point to an int. >>> >>> 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even if it is not *pointing to* >>> an 'int'. >> >> No you are an idiot. 'p''s type has nothing to do with what it points to. > > The confusion is all yours as you cannot accept that a pointer of type > 'int*' can never point to an array; it can only ever point to an 'int' > object (or no object at all). If a pointer of type 'int*' is pointing to > the first element of an 'int' array then that pointer can be passed to > delete[] to deallocate the array. > If a pointer points-to the first element of an array, it points to the array. An int* can be null, point to an int or point to an array of ints. >>> >>> Also: >>> >>> int* p = 0; >>> >>> 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even though it is not *pointing >>> to* an 'int'. >> >> No you are confused between what it's type is and what it points to. > > Again the confusion is all yours. Here the type of 'p' is "pointer to an > int" however it is not (at runtime) pointing to an 'int' object. > Its TYPE is pointer to int TYPE. p is not a pointer to a single int if it points to an array of them. >> >>> >>> Subtle but important terminology. One term describes a compile time >>> concept whilst the other term describes a runtime concept. >>> >> Subtle but important terminology includes the word "type". You are an >> idiot. > > "Types" only exist at compile time (ignoring RTTI) so are the "compile > time concept" I was referring to; objects on the other hand only exist at > runtime so are the "runtime concept" I was referring to. Pay attention. > > Again with the insults; your "debating" skills are amazing. > This debate has been had before and you cannot accept the obvious. int* p = new arr[66]; If the allocation succeeds, p points to an array of int objects. You are of the opinion that p does not point to an array of integers but only to one single integer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 03:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98cf4f82-a9a3-4eaf-8f50-89a83c3a58ae@m40g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5952 |
On Jun 1, 10:23 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> This debate has been had before and you cannot accept the obvious.
> int* p = new arr[66];
>
> If the allocation succeeds, p points to an array of int objects.
> You are of the opinion that p does not point to an array of integers but
> only to one single integer.
"When the allocated object is an array (that is, the direct-new-
declarator
syntax is used or the new-type-id or type-id denotes an array
type), the
new-expression yields a pointer to the initial element (if any) of
the array."
[Some standard or other, 5.3.4:5]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 15:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2tsFp.29611$h_.17538@newsfe30.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5956 |
"gwowen" <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote in message news:98cf4f82-a9a3-4eaf-8f50-89a83c3a58ae@m40g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... On Jun 1, 10:23 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > This debate has been had before and you cannot accept the obvious. > int* p = new arr[66]; > > If the allocation succeeds, p points to an array of int objects. > You are of the opinion that p does not point to an array of integers but > only to one single integer. -- "When the allocated object is an array (that is, the direct-new- --declarator -- syntax is used or the new-type-id or type-id denotes an array --type), the -- new-expression yields a pointer to the initial element (if any) of --the array." -- [Some standard or other, 5.3.4:5] And you think this means it doesn't point to the array? If it points to an element (if any) OF THE ARRAY, then it points to the array. int* p = new int[1]; This array is sized one so the array is exactly the same thing as its initial element. The address of an array is the same as the address of its initial element. To be specific about what element WITHIN THE ARRAY is pointed to , doesn't mean the pointer doesn't point to the array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 13:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p6-dnYgnSMDkqXvQnZ2dnUVZ8mmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5952 |
On 01/06/2011 10:23, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:cIWdnQE4Fusc1njQnZ2dnUVZ8nWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 31/05/2011 20:45, Paul wrote: >>> >>> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:oaadnQV->>>>> >>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A pointer to an array of integer objects is of type int*. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wrong; 'int*' is a pointer to a single 'int' not an array of 'int'. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>>> No I am not wrong, int* can point to a single int or an array of >>>>>>> integers as shown : >>>>>> >>>>>>> int* p_arr= new int[66]; >>>>>> >>>>>>> In C++ a pointer to an array of T's is used to access the array with >>>>>>> the subscripting syntax T[N], where N is the, zero based, Nth >>>>>>> element >>>>>>> of the array. >>>>>> >>>>>> In C++ a pointer to a single value of type T can be used to access >>>>>> the >>>>>> value with the subscripting syntax ip[0]. A pointer to int points to >>>>>> (wait for it...) an int. >>>>> >>>>> Well, to be totally fair, there is one occurrence where this is not >>>>> true: >>>>> >>>>> int* p = new int[0]; >>>>> >>>>> p points to an array with no elements and p doesn't point to an int. >>>> >>>> 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even if it is not *pointing to* >>>> an 'int'. >>> >>> No you are an idiot. 'p''s type has nothing to do with what it points >>> to. >> >> The confusion is all yours as you cannot accept that a pointer of type >> 'int*' can never point to an array; it can only ever point to an 'int' >> object (or no object at all). If a pointer of type 'int*' is pointing >> to the first element of an 'int' array then that pointer can be passed >> to delete[] to deallocate the array. >> > If a pointer points-to the first element of an array, it points to the > array. No it doesn't; it points to the first element of the array. > An int* can be null, point to an int or point to an array of ints. It is impossible for a pointer of type 'int*' to point to an array as they are unrelated types. > >>>> >>>> Also: >>>> >>>> int* p = 0; >>>> >>>> 'p' is still a *pointer to an* 'int' even though it is not *pointing >>>> to* an 'int'. >>> >>> No you are confused between what it's type is and what it points to. >> >> Again the confusion is all yours. Here the type of 'p' is "pointer to >> an int" however it is not (at runtime) pointing to an 'int' object. >> > Its TYPE is pointer to int TYPE. Correct. > p is not a pointer to a single int if it points to an array of them. You couldn't be more wrong. 'p' is a pointer of type 'int*'; the type of 'p' is fixed and is unrelated to what object (if any) it is pointing to. > >>> >>>> >>>> Subtle but important terminology. One term describes a compile time >>>> concept whilst the other term describes a runtime concept. >>>> >>> Subtle but important terminology includes the word "type". You are an >>> idiot. >> >> "Types" only exist at compile time (ignoring RTTI) so are the "compile >> time concept" I was referring to; objects on the other hand only exist >> at runtime so are the "runtime concept" I was referring to. Pay >> attention. >> >> Again with the insults; your "debating" skills are amazing. >> > > This debate has been had before and you cannot accept the obvious. > int* p = new arr[66]; > > If the allocation succeeds, p points to an array of int objects. Wrong. If the allocation succeeds p points to the first element of an array of int objects; the Standard couldn't be more clear on this point. > You are of the opinion that p does not point to an array of integers but > only to one single integer. Yes I am as this opinion is the correct opinion as it is backed up by the C++ Standard. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 14:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <CeqdnUyDbYLSoHvQnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5963 |
On 01/06/2011 13:45, Leigh Johnston wrote: > On 01/06/2011 10:23, Paul wrote: >> p is not a pointer to a single int if it points to an array of them. > > You couldn't be more wrong. 'p' is a pointer of type 'int*'; the type of > 'p' is fixed and is unrelated to what object (if any) it is pointing to. Actually I retract that last statement (it is incorrect); I should have said: The type of 'p' is fixed and it can only point to objects of a related type or no object at all; in this case the only valid related type is 'int' not 'array of int'. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web