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 18 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Next page →
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-28 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniu29dm.phg.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #5723 |
On 2011-05-27, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > So what, in your mind, is the object referred to by the C++ standard as a > non modifiable object of array type? Exactly where in the C++ standard is the phrase "non modifiable object of array type"? I could not find it in either the 1998 standard or the 2003 revision.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-28 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JUaEp.25903$Am5.21405@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5770 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniu29dm.phg.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-05-27, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > >> So what, in your mind, is the object referred to by the C++ standard as a >> non modifiable object of array type? > > Exactly where in the C++ standard is the phrase "non modifiable > object of array type"? I could not find it in either the 1998 > standard or the 2003 revision. > Section 8.3.4 Arrays 5 [ Note: conversions affecting expressions of array type are described in 4.2. Objects of array types cannot be modified, see 3.10. -end note ] §
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 12:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniua96r.jkt.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #5772 |
On 2011-05-28, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:slrniu29dm.phg.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> On 2011-05-27, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> So what, in your mind, is the object referred to by the C++ standard as a >>> non modifiable object of array type? >> >> Exactly where in the C++ standard is the phrase "non modifiable >> object of array type"? I could not find it in either the 1998 >> standard or the 2003 revision. >> > Section 8.3.4 Arrays > > 5 [ Note: conversions affecting expressions of array type are described in > 4.2. Objects of array types cannot be modified, see 3.10. -end note ] > § > An example of the second sentence of the note is that the assignment statement x = y; is not allowed when x and y are arrays, say declared with int x[3], y[3]; The object of array type that cannot be modified is the one that contains the sub-objects that are the array elements. In the example, it is the object named x, containing 3 sub-objects of type int. In general, C++ operators do not manipulate an entire array as a unit. Similarly, assigning to a dereferenced pointer to an array is not allowed, as in *px = y where in addition to the declaration of x and y above, px is declared with int (*px)[3] = &x; The sections of the C++ standard cited in the above note give the details of why assigning to an array type is not allowed. Paragraph 1 of section 4.2 (Array-to-pointer conversion) is: An lvalue or rvalue of type "array of N T" or "array of unknown bound of T" can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to T." The result is a pointer to the first element of the array. Note that the result of an array-to-pointer conversion is an rvalue of type pointer. The first two paragraphs of 3.10 (Lvalues and rvalues) are Every expression is either an lvalue or an rvalue. An lvalue refers to an object or function. Some rvalue expressions --- those of class or cv-qualified class type --- also refer to objects. Given the declaration int z; the result of the expression z is an lvalue that refers to the object where the value of the variable z is stored. Because a pointer is not of a class or cv-qualified class type, the rvalue result of array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an object. In a assignment the left operand needs to refer to an object, the one whose value is replaced with that of the right operand of the assignment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-31 20:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <YCbFp.24386$UY3.10485@newsfe20.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5915 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniua96r.jkt.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-05-28, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >> news:slrniu29dm.phg.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >>> On 2011-05-27, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> So what, in your mind, is the object referred to by the C++ standard as >>>> a >>>> non modifiable object of array type? >>> >>> Exactly where in the C++ standard is the phrase "non modifiable >>> object of array type"? I could not find it in either the 1998 >>> standard or the 2003 revision. >>> >> Section 8.3.4 Arrays >> >> 5 [ Note: conversions affecting expressions of array type are described >> in >> 4.2. Objects of array types cannot be modified, see 3.10. -end note ] >> § >> > > An example of the second sentence of the note is that the assignment > statement > > x = y; > > is not allowed when x and y are arrays, say declared with > > int x[3], y[3]; > > The object of array type that cannot be modified is the one that > contains the sub-objects that are the array elements. In the > example, it is the object named x, containing 3 sub-objects of type > int. In general, C++ operators do not manipulate an entire array as > a unit. > > Similarly, assigning to a dereferenced pointer to an array is not > allowed, as in > > *px = y > > where in addition to the declaration of x and y above, px is declared > with > > int (*px)[3] = &x; > > > The sections of the C++ standard cited in the above note give the > details of why assigning to an array type is not allowed. Paragraph > 1 of section 4.2 (Array-to-pointer conversion) is: > > An lvalue or rvalue of type "array of N T" or "array of unknown > bound of T" can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to T." > The result is a pointer to the first element of the array. > > Note that the result of an array-to-pointer conversion is an rvalue > of type pointer. > > The first two paragraphs of 3.10 (Lvalues and rvalues) are > > Every expression is either an lvalue or an rvalue. > > An lvalue refers to an object or function. Some rvalue expressions > --- those of class or cv-qualified class type --- also refer to > objects. > > Given the declaration > > int z; > > the result of the expression z is an lvalue that refers to the object > where the value of the variable z is stored. > > Because a pointer is not of a class or cv-qualified class type, the > rvalue result of array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an > object. In a assignment the left operand needs to refer to an object, > the one whose value is replaced with that of the right operand of the > assignment. > What did you have for breakfast? A pointer is not a class , period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 12:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniucund.1rf2.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #5921 |
On 2011-05-31, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:slrniua96r.jkt.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> On 2011-05-28, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [snip] >>> Section 8.3.4 Arrays >>> >>> 5 [ Note: conversions affecting expressions of array type are described >>> in >>> 4.2. Objects of array types cannot be modified, see 3.10. -end note ] >>> § [snip] >> The sections of the C++ standard cited in the above note give the >> details of why assigning to an array type is not allowed. Paragraph >> 1 of section 4.2 (Array-to-pointer conversion) is: >> >> An lvalue or rvalue of type "array of N T" or "array of unknown >> bound of T" can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to T." >> The result is a pointer to the first element of the array. >> >> Note that the result of an array-to-pointer conversion is an rvalue >> of type pointer. >> >> The first two paragraphs of 3.10 (Lvalues and rvalues) are >> >> Every expression is either an lvalue or an rvalue. >> >> An lvalue refers to an object or function. Some rvalue expressions >> --- those of class or cv-qualified class type --- also refer to >> objects. >> >> Given the declaration >> >> int z; >> >> the result of the expression z is an lvalue that refers to the object >> where the value of the variable z is stored. >> >> Because a pointer is not of a class or cv-qualified class type, the >> rvalue result of array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an >> object. In a assignment the left operand needs to refer to an object, >> the one whose value is replaced with that of the right operand of the >> assignment. >> > What did you have for breakfast? What I had for breakfast is irrelevant. > A pointer is not a class , period. I never stated it was. I wrote: "Because a pointer is not of a class or cv-qualified class type, the rvalue result of array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an object." The "of class or cv-qualified class type" part is from the C++ standard about rvalues that refer to objects. I simply reasoned from statements in the C++ standard to reach a conclusion about details behind why assigning to an array type is not allowed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <aowFp.28868$A05.23438@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5979 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniucund.1rf2.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-05-31, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >> news:slrniua96r.jkt.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >>> On 2011-05-28, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > >>>> Section 8.3.4 Arrays >>>> >>>> 5 [ Note: conversions affecting expressions of array type are described >>>> in >>>> 4.2. Objects of array types cannot be modified, see 3.10. -end note ] >>>> § > > [snip] > >>> The sections of the C++ standard cited in the above note give the >>> details of why assigning to an array type is not allowed. Paragraph >>> 1 of section 4.2 (Array-to-pointer conversion) is: >>> >>> An lvalue or rvalue of type "array of N T" or "array of unknown >>> bound of T" can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to T." >>> The result is a pointer to the first element of the array. >>> >>> Note that the result of an array-to-pointer conversion is an rvalue >>> of type pointer. >>> >>> The first two paragraphs of 3.10 (Lvalues and rvalues) are >>> >>> Every expression is either an lvalue or an rvalue. >>> >>> An lvalue refers to an object or function. Some rvalue expressions >>> --- those of class or cv-qualified class type --- also refer to >>> objects. >>> >>> Given the declaration >>> >>> int z; >>> >>> the result of the expression z is an lvalue that refers to the object >>> where the value of the variable z is stored. >>> >>> Because a pointer is not of a class or cv-qualified class type, the >>> rvalue result of array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an >>> object. In a assignment the left operand needs to refer to an object, >>> the one whose value is replaced with that of the right operand of the >>> assignment. >>> >> What did you have for breakfast? > > What I had for breakfast is irrelevant. > >> A pointer is not a class , period. > > I never stated it was. I wrote: "Because a pointer is not of a > class or cv-qualified class type, the rvalue result of > array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an object." The "of > class or cv-qualified class type" part is from the C++ standard about > rvalues that refer to objects. I simply reasoned from statements in > the C++ standard to reach a conclusion about details behind why > assigning to an array type is not allowed. > So the rvalue result of an array to pointer conversion does not refer to an object? Well what does it refer to? And what does it mean by "refer to", does this mean the same as what it "points to"? I think you are getting to tied up with language lawyeresque. You cannot see the the wood for the trees.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 12:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniufig2.2od7.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #5994 |
On 2011-06-01, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:slrniucund.1rf2.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> On 2011-05-31, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >>> news:slrniua96r.jkt.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >>>> On 2011-05-28, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>>> Section 8.3.4 Arrays >>>>> >>>>> 5 [ Note: conversions affecting expressions of array type are described >>>>> in >>>>> 4.2. Objects of array types cannot be modified, see 3.10. -end note ] >>>>> § >> >> [snip] >> >>>> The sections of the C++ standard cited in the above note give the >>>> details of why assigning to an array type is not allowed. Paragraph >>>> 1 of section 4.2 (Array-to-pointer conversion) is: >>>> >>>> An lvalue or rvalue of type "array of N T" or "array of unknown >>>> bound of T" can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to T." >>>> The result is a pointer to the first element of the array. >>>> >>>> Note that the result of an array-to-pointer conversion is an rvalue >>>> of type pointer. >>>> >>>> The first two paragraphs of 3.10 (Lvalues and rvalues) are >>>> >>>> Every expression is either an lvalue or an rvalue. >>>> >>>> An lvalue refers to an object or function. Some rvalue expressions >>>> --- those of class or cv-qualified class type --- also refer to >>>> objects. >>>> >>>> Given the declaration >>>> >>>> int z; >>>> >>>> the result of the expression z is an lvalue that refers to the object >>>> where the value of the variable z is stored. >>>> >>>> Because a pointer is not of a class or cv-qualified class type, the >>>> rvalue result of array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an >>>> object. In a assignment the left operand needs to refer to an object, >>>> the one whose value is replaced with that of the right operand of the >>>> assignment. >>>> >>> What did you have for breakfast? >> >> What I had for breakfast is irrelevant. >> >>> A pointer is not a class , period. >> >> I never stated it was. I wrote: "Because a pointer is not of a >> class or cv-qualified class type, the rvalue result of >> array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an object." The "of >> class or cv-qualified class type" part is from the C++ standard about >> rvalues that refer to objects. I simply reasoned from statements in >> the C++ standard to reach a conclusion about details behind why >> assigning to an array type is not allowed. >> > > So the rvalue result of an array to pointer conversion does not refer to an > object? > Well what does it refer to? And what does it mean by "refer to", does this > mean the same as what it "points to"? Yes, the result of an array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an object. The result is a value that is not in a C++ object. The C++ standard does not define the term "refer to", although the term occurs a number of times. It is used in the above quote from 3.10 (Lvalues and rvalues) of the standard, the first sentence of the second paragraph is: An lvalue refers to an object or function. Another place it is used is in paragraph 8 of section 3 (Basic concepts): An identifier used in more than one translation unit can potentially refer to the same entity in these translation units depending on the linkage (3.5) of the identifier specified in each translation unit. "Refers to" is not the same as "points to". Points to is what a pointer does. An lvalue of a pointer type refers to the object that contains the pointer value. Given the declaration int x, *px = &x; x refers to the object that contains the value of x. px refers to the object that contains the value of px. px points to the object that contains the value of x. > I think you are getting to tied up with language lawyeresque. You cannot see > the the wood for the trees. I am not getting tied up with language lawyeresque. When there are questions about details of C++, the C++ standard is the definitive source of information about those details.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 20:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sdSFp.31195$ue1.24404@newsfe28.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6086 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniufig2.2od7.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-06-01, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> [snip] >>> >>>>>> Section 8.3.4 Arrays >>>>>> >>>>>> 5 [ Note: conversions affecting expressions of array type are >>>>>> described >>>>>> in >>>>>> 4.2. Objects of array types cannot be modified, see 3.10. -end note ] >>>>>> § >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>> The sections of the C++ standard cited in the above note give the >>>>> details of why assigning to an array type is not allowed. Paragraph >>>>> 1 of section 4.2 (Array-to-pointer conversion) is: >>>>> >>>>> An lvalue or rvalue of type "array of N T" or "array of unknown >>>>> bound of T" can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to T." >>>>> The result is a pointer to the first element of the array. >>>>> >>>>> Note that the result of an array-to-pointer conversion is an rvalue >>>>> of type pointer. >>>>> >>>>> The first two paragraphs of 3.10 (Lvalues and rvalues) are >>>>> >>>>> Every expression is either an lvalue or an rvalue. >>>>> >>>>> An lvalue refers to an object or function. Some rvalue expressions >>>>> --- those of class or cv-qualified class type --- also refer to >>>>> objects. >>>>> >>>>> Given the declaration >>>>> >>>>> int z; >>>>> >>>>> the result of the expression z is an lvalue that refers to the object >>>>> where the value of the variable z is stored. >>>>> >>>>> Because a pointer is not of a class or cv-qualified class type, the >>>>> rvalue result of array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an >>>>> object. In a assignment the left operand needs to refer to an object, >>>>> the one whose value is replaced with that of the right operand of the >>>>> assignment. >>>>> >>>> What did you have for breakfast? >>> >>> What I had for breakfast is irrelevant. >>> >>>> A pointer is not a class , period. >>> >>> I never stated it was. I wrote: "Because a pointer is not of a >>> class or cv-qualified class type, the rvalue result of >>> array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to an object." The "of >>> class or cv-qualified class type" part is from the C++ standard about >>> rvalues that refer to objects. I simply reasoned from statements in >>> the C++ standard to reach a conclusion about details behind why >>> assigning to an array type is not allowed. >>> >> >> So the rvalue result of an array to pointer conversion does not refer to >> an >> object? >> Well what does it refer to? And what does it mean by "refer to", does >> this >> mean the same as what it "points to"? > > Yes, the result of an array-to-pointer conversion does not refer to > an object. The result is a value that is not in a C++ object. > > The C++ standard does not define the term "refer to", although the > term occurs a number of times. It is used in the above quote from > 3.10 (Lvalues and rvalues) of the standard, the first sentence of > the second paragraph is: > > An lvalue refers to an object or function. > > Another place it is used is in paragraph 8 of section 3 (Basic > concepts): > > An identifier used in more than one translation unit can > potentially refer to the same entity in these translation units > depending on the linkage (3.5) of the identifier specified in each > translation unit. > > "Refers to" is not the same as "points to". Points to is what a > pointer does. An lvalue of a pointer type refers to the object that > contains the pointer value. Given the declaration > > int x, *px = &x; > > x refers to the object that contains the value of x. px refers to > the object that contains the value of px. px points to the object > that contains the value of x. > >> I think you are getting to tied up with language lawyeresque. You cannot >> see >> the the wood for the trees. > > I am not getting tied up with language lawyeresque. When there are > questions about details of C++, the C++ standard is the definitive > source of information about those details. Well it's you that is introducing all this language lawyeresque stuff. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of type int* cannot point to an array of integer objects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 10:34 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011060210342271730-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #6092 |
On 2011-06-02 09:23:12 -1000, Paul said: > > I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of > type int* cannot point to an array of integer objects. The reason is simple: a pointer of type int* points to an int. That's what int* means. An int is not an array of integer objects. -- 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 | 2011-06-03 01:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <S4WFp.45689$m_1.7467@newsfe22.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6096 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011060210342271730-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-06-02 09:23:12 -1000, Paul said: > >> >> I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of >> type int* cannot point to an array of integer objects. > > The reason is simple: a pointer of type int* points to an int. That's what > int* means. An int is not an array of integer objects. > int arr1[1]; This is an int(singular) int arr2[16]; These are ints(plural) A pointer to all these ints can be, and usually is, of type int*. A pointer references a memory location and when its dereferenced we get the value from that location. You cannot reference a whole array unless you have an array of pointers. You can only represent a pointer to the whole array using the C++ type system. I can appreciate both pointer types as pointing to an array of objects, in different ways. I do not think that an int* cannot point to an array of int objects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 16:06 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011060216061983880-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #6108 |
On 2011-06-02 14:41:16 -1000, Paul said: > "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > news:2011060210342271730-pete@versatilecodingcom... >> On 2011-06-02 09:23:12 -1000, Paul said: >> >>> >>> I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of >>> type int* cannot point to an array of integer objects. >> >> The reason is simple: a pointer of type int* points to an int. That's >> what int* means. An int is not an array of integer objects. >> > int arr1[1]; > This is an int(singular) > int arr2[16]; > These are ints(plural) > A pointer to all these ints can be, and usually is, of type int*. A pointer to any of these ints is of type int*. There is no single pointer to all of these ints. > > A pointer references a memory location and when its dereferenced we get > the value from that location. > You cannot reference a whole array unless you have an array of > pointers. You can only represent a pointer to the whole array using the > C++ type system. > > I can appreciate both pointer types as pointing to an array of objects, > in different ways. I do not think that an int* cannot point to an array > of int objects. Which is what I said above: an int* points to an int. It does not point to an array of int objects, because an array of int objects is not 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 | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 16:12 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011060216124975452-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #6114 |
On 2011-06-02 16:06:19 -1000, Pete Becker said: > On 2011-06-02 14:41:16 -1000, Paul said: > >> "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message >> news:2011060210342271730-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>> On 2011-06-02 09:23:12 -1000, Paul said: >>> >>>> >>>> I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of >>>> type int* cannot point to an array of integer objects. >>> >>> The reason is simple: a pointer of type int* points to an int. That's >>> what int* means. An int is not an array of integer objects. >>> >> int arr1[1]; >> This is an int(singular) >> int arr2[16]; >> These are ints(plural) >> A pointer to all these ints can be, and usually is, of type int*. > > A pointer to any of these ints is of type int*. There is no single > pointer to all of these ints. > >> >> A pointer references a memory location and when its dereferenced we get >> the value from that location. >> You cannot reference a whole array unless you have an array of >> pointers. You can only represent a pointer to the whole array using the >> C++ type system. >> >> I can appreciate both pointer types as pointing to an array of objects, >> in different ways. I do not think that an int* cannot point to an array >> of int objects. > > Which is what I said above: an int* points to an int. It does not point > to an array of int objects, because an array of int objects is not an > int. Whoops, misread the double negative. I said the opposite, and merely re-asserting your claim that you disagree doesn't contribute to the discussion. The C++ language definition tells you what the type of a pointer is in C++; if you think it should mean something else then you belong in a different newsgroup. -- 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 | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 16:21 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011060216212430425-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #6116 |
> >> On 2011-06-02 14:41:16 -1000, Paul said: >> >>> "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message >>> news:2011060210342271730-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>>> On 2011-06-02 09:23:12 -1000, Paul said: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of >>>>> type int* cannot point to an array of integer objects. >>>> >>>> The reason is simple: a pointer of type int* points to an int. That's >>>> what int* means. An int is not an array of integer objects. >>>> >>> int arr1[1]; >>> This is an int(singular) 'arr1' is not an int. It is an array of 1 int. >>> int arr2[16]; >>> These are ints(plural) 'arr2' is an array of sixteen ints. Don't be confused by the fact that the name of an array usually decays into a pointer to its first element. That's just a conversion, and being able to convert one type into another does not make the two types the same. -- 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 | 2011-06-03 14:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <P95Gp.12853$Dk2.5285@newsfe04.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6116 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011060216124975452-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-06-02 16:06:19 -1000, Pete Becker said: > >> On 2011-06-02 14:41:16 -1000, Paul said: >> >>> "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message >>> news:2011060210342271730-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>>> On 2011-06-02 09:23:12 -1000, Paul said: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of >>>>> type int* cannot point to an array of integer objects. >>>> >>>> The reason is simple: a pointer of type int* points to an int. That's >>>> what int* means. An int is not an array of integer objects. >>>> >>> int arr1[1]; >>> This is an int(singular) >>> int arr2[16]; >>> These are ints(plural) >>> A pointer to all these ints can be, and usually is, of type int*. >> >> A pointer to any of these ints is of type int*. There is no single >> pointer to all of these ints. >> >>> >>> A pointer references a memory location and when its dereferenced we get >>> the value from that location. >>> You cannot reference a whole array unless you have an array of pointers. >>> You can only represent a pointer to the whole array using the C++ type >>> system. >>> >>> I can appreciate both pointer types as pointing to an array of objects, >>> in different ways. I do not think that an int* cannot point to an array >>> of int objects. >> >> Which is what I said above: an int* points to an int. It does not point >> to an array of int objects, because an array of int objects is not an >> int. > > Whoops, misread the double negative. I said the opposite, and merely > re-asserting your claim that you disagree doesn't contribute to the > discussion. The C++ language definition tells you what the type of a > pointer is in C++; if you think it should mean something else then you > belong in a different newsgroup. > > -- Simply stating that this is NOT correct or that is NOT correct doesn't do alot for the discussion either. But I have another discussion going on, that you were previously involved in but have now shifted over to this one, where the guy is say that an array object is the same thing as an array of integers. So is an object of type int array the same memory region that is a sequence of integer objects? If it is then : [int][int][int][int] The above is four integer objects or a single array object. [int] The above is a single integer object or an array of size one. In the latter example , the array object is the same thing as its element object. You are saying this is not an int, please can you clarify how this region of memory can possibly be conveived as NOT being an int. You have not clarified what exactly is your idea of an array object, because you started to dsiscuss it but you seem to have dropped out of the discussion when I asked whether an array object exists with: int* p = new int[55]; People seem to have different opinions about whether or not an array object exists here. Or to make it in linewith the current discussion consider this: int p2 = new int[1]; What exaclty is the object created by this expression? I have said that I think it can be considered as either a) an array of size one b) Just one integer object. Just as the 55 elements p points to above can be considered: a) an arrayt of size 55 b) int objects, in sequence There is no right or wrong way to view an array , it can bew seen both ways.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1cd6c0ae-9e95-4f6c-aaeb-179a57b10406@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6136 |
> So is an object of type int array the same memory region that is a sequence > of integer objects? If it is then : > [int][int][int][int] > The above is four integer objects or a single array object. > > [int] > The above is a single integer object or an array of size one. > > In the latter example , the array object is the same thing as its element > object. You are saying this is not an int, please can you clarify how this > region of memory can possibly be conveived as NOT being an int. It is just memory, the type system in C/C++ is abstraction. The key concept relevant to your suggestion above is that object of type int is stored in that memory location. References and pointers are abstraction of concept of "address" in memory. The first example of yours is that sizeof(int)*4 chars worth of memory is allocated, typically aligned to sizeof(int). The type of objects for that region of storage (read: memory) is int. You are supposed to read and write int objects to memory which can be pointed at with pointer-to-int (int*). The second example of yours doesn't stipulate how the storage (read: memory) is allocated. That is critical piece of information as it will determine the type. There are four ways that spring to mind at this sitting: 1. int* p = new int; // single int object in heap 2. int* p = new int[1]; // array of 1 int in heap 3. int value; // in stack or global scope 4. static int value; // definitely not in stack ;) But that is irrelevant for the point at hand: if you have a pointer to that integer, that's all you going to need to access it. Beyond that, you need to know if the int is in sequence of integers and the range. That is something the C++ does not do for you, this is important to realize. You're on your own when you do pointer arithmetic to access adjacent int objects, if any. You have a knack for making the obvious obfuscated; congratulations! ;----o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13ba86a3-6c9b-4912-9c53-e94a9842e959@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6136 |
> int* p = new int[55]; > People seem to have different opinions about whether or not an array object > exists here. Or to make it in linewith the current discussion consider this: Memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to the first element. The type is "int*" > int p2 = new int[1]; > What exaclty is the object created by this expression? That's a syntax error, but I assume you meant "int *p2 = new int[1];", in which case memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to the first (and in this case only) element. The type is "int*" > I have said that I think it can be considered as either > a) an array of size one > b) Just one integer object. Array of size one has only one object, just like array of size two has two objects and so on - amazing, yes. But operator new [] does not create array, it does dynamic memory allocation. The allocated memory is returned to you as pointer to the first element. > Just as the 55 elements p points to above can be considered: > a) an arrayt of size 55 No, you cannot consider it as an array of size 55, as it is not an array. > b) int objects, in sequence Better. ;) > There is no right or wrong way to view an array , it can bew seen both ways. When you view an array, yes, but your examples are dynamic memory allocation. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 21:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <knwGp.529$29.193@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6206 |
"hanukas" <jukka@liimatta.org> wrote in message news:13ba86a3-6c9b-4912-9c53-e94a9842e959@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> int* p = new int[55]; >> People seem to have different opinions about whether or not an array >> object >> exists here. Or to make it in linewith the current discussion consider >> this: > > Memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to the first > element. The type is "int*" > > >> int p2 = new int[1]; >> What exaclty is the object created by this expression? > > That's a syntax error, but I assume you meant "int *p2 = new int[1];", > in which case memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to > the first (and in this case only) element. The type is "int*" > > >> I have said that I think it can be considered as either >> a) an array of size one >> b) Just one integer object. > > Array of size one has only one object, just like array of size two has > two objects and so on - amazing, yes. But operator new [] does not > create array, it does dynamic memory allocation. The allocated memory > is returned to you as pointer to the first element. > > >> Just as the 55 elements p points to above can be considered: >> a) an arrayt of size 55 > > No, you cannot consider it as an array of size 55, as it is not an > array. I disagree , an array of integer objects are created in memory. > > >> b) int objects, in sequence > > Better. ;) > > >> There is no right or wrong way to view an array , it can bew seen both >> ways. > > When you view an array, yes, but your examples are dynamic memory > allocation. ;) > So obviously you are of the opinion that an array type object doesn't exist in the example of a "dynamic array". Other people here , who seem just as confident as you in their correctness, think that an array object exists. So is it a case of one view is wrong and the other is right? Or is it a case, as I have said, that both views are correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7723d127-33ef-40fc-9d69-1082cd1c7692@x6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6211 |
On Jun 4, 11:02 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "hanukas" <ju...@liimatta.org> wrote in message > > news:13ba86a3-6c9b-4912-9c53-e94a9842e959@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > >> int* p = new int[55]; > >> People seem to have different opinions about whether or not an array > >> object > >> exists here. Or to make it in linewith the current discussion consider > >> this: > > > Memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to the first > > element. The type is "int*" > > >> int p2 = new int[1]; > >> What exaclty is the object created by this expression? > > > That's a syntax error, but I assume you meant "int *p2 = new int[1];", > > in which case memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to > > the first (and in this case only) element. The type is "int*" > > >> I have said that I think it can be considered as either > >> a) an array of size one > >> b) Just one integer object. > > > Array of size one has only one object, just like array of size two has > > two objects and so on - amazing, yes. But operator new [] does not > > create array, it does dynamic memory allocation. The allocated memory > > is returned to you as pointer to the first element. > > >> Just as the 55 elements p points to above can be considered: > >> a) an arrayt of size 55 > > > No, you cannot consider it as an array of size 55, as it is not an > > array. > > I disagree , an array of integer objects are created in memory. > > > > >> b) int objects, in sequence > > > Better. ;) > > >> There is no right or wrong way to view an array , it can bew seen both > >> ways. > > > When you view an array, yes, but your examples are dynamic memory > > allocation. ;) > > So obviously you are of the opinion that an array type object doesn't exist > in the example of a "dynamic array". There is no example of "dynamic array", it's dynamic memory allocation. > Other people here , who seem just as confident as you in their correctness, > think that an array object exists. So is it a case of one view is wrong and > the other is right? Or is it a case, as I have said, that both views are > correct? I can't nor won't speak for other people here, anything else?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 22:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <TyxGp.1360$wK7.699@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6214 |
"hanukas" <jukka@liimatta.org> wrote in message news:7723d127-33ef-40fc-9d69-1082cd1c7692@x6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > > >> int* p = new int[55]; > >> People seem to have different opinions about whether or not an array > >> object > >> exists here. Or to make it in linewith the current discussion consider > >> this: > > > Memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to the first > > element. The type is "int*" > > >> int p2 = new int[1]; > >> What exaclty is the object created by this expression? > > > That's a syntax error, but I assume you meant "int *p2 = new int[1];", > > in which case memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to > > the first (and in this case only) element. The type is "int*" > > >> I have said that I think it can be considered as either > >> a) an array of size one > >> b) Just one integer object. > > > Array of size one has only one object, just like array of size two has > > two objects and so on - amazing, yes. But operator new [] does not > > create array, it does dynamic memory allocation. The allocated memory > > is returned to you as pointer to the first element. > > >> Just as the 55 elements p points to above can be considered: > >> a) an arrayt of size 55 > > > No, you cannot consider it as an array of size 55, as it is not an > > array. > > I disagree , an array of integer objects are created in memory. > > > > >> b) int objects, in sequence > > > Better. ;) > > >> There is no right or wrong way to view an array , it can bew seen both > >> ways. > > > When you view an array, yes, but your examples are dynamic memory > > allocation. ;) > > So obviously you are of the opinion that an array type object doesn't > exist > in the example of a "dynamic array". --There is no example of "dynamic array", it's dynamic memory --allocation. So what exactly is a "dynamic array", in your terms? > Other people here , who seem just as confident as you in their > correctness, > think that an array object exists. So is it a case of one view is wrong > and > the other is right? Or is it a case, as I have said, that both views are > correct? --I can't nor won't speak for other people here, anything else? No you do not speak for other people, you can read their posts if you like and perhaps you would understand that their views differ from yours. Nothing else required nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 15:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb8efb21-0935-4ccf-9c45-8ccbbe1ac246@u26g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6216 |
On Jun 5, 12:35 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "hanukas" <ju...@liimatta.org> wrote in message > > news:7723d127-33ef-40fc-9d69-1082cd1c7692@x6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> int* p = new int[55]; > > >> People seem to have different opinions about whether or not an array > > >> object > > >> exists here. Or to make it in linewith the current discussion consider > > >> this: > > > > Memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to the first > > > element. The type is "int*" > > > >> int p2 = new int[1]; > > >> What exaclty is the object created by this expression? > > > > That's a syntax error, but I assume you meant "int *p2 = new int[1];", > > > in which case memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to > > > the first (and in this case only) element. The type is "int*" > > > >> I have said that I think it can be considered as either > > >> a) an array of size one > > >> b) Just one integer object. > > > > Array of size one has only one object, just like array of size two has > > > two objects and so on - amazing, yes. But operator new [] does not > > > create array, it does dynamic memory allocation. The allocated memory > > > is returned to you as pointer to the first element. > > > >> Just as the 55 elements p points to above can be considered: > > >> a) an arrayt of size 55 > > > > No, you cannot consider it as an array of size 55, as it is not an > > > array. > > > I disagree , an array of integer objects are created in memory. > > > >> b) int objects, in sequence > > > > Better. ;) > > > >> There is no right or wrong way to view an array , it can bew seen both > > >> ways. > > > > When you view an array, yes, but your examples are dynamic memory > > > allocation. ;) > > > So obviously you are of the opinion that an array type object doesn't > > exist > > in the example of a "dynamic array". > > --There is no example of "dynamic array", it's dynamic memory > --allocation. > > So what exactly is a "dynamic array", in your terms? > > > Other people here , who seem just as confident as you in their > > correctness, > > think that an array object exists. So is it a case of one view is wrong > > and > > the other is right? Or is it a case, as I have said, that both views are > > correct? > > --I can't nor won't speak for other people here, anything else? > > No you do not speak for other people, you can read their posts if you like > and perhaps you would understand that their views differ from yours. > Nothing else required nope. Haystack. Needle. 400+ posts, yeah, right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web