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 11 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 21 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 22:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8yyFp.47691$7H.47430@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6020 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011060111285351246-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-06-01 11:10:50 -1000, Paul said: > >> "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message >> news:201106011031592971-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>> On 2011-06-01 10:22:11 -1000, Paul said: >>>> >>>> The problem is that people can interpret the standards in different >>>> ways, and when the majority of people in a given group come to a >>>> consensus about the interpreted meaning, that is the defined meaning. >>>> But a technical standard should define what it is written to define , >>>> not a clique of people who have a common concencus of its >>>> interpretation. >>> >>> I look forward to seeing your rewrite of the C++ standard with all the >>> problems you perceive fixed so that no reader could possibly interpret >>> it differently from what you intended. When will it be available? >>> >> There is no need for this sarcasm, I fully appreciate the mammoth task of >> creating the C++ standard. >> >> But you cannot have it both ways, you want an array to be a non >> modifiable object of array type when we discuss pointers to arrays, but >> in other situations you want an array to be a sequence of objects. > > The two are not inherently inconsistent. And when you see potential > conflicts in the way things are described you can either proclaim that > they are irreconcilable and anyone trying to reconcile them is an idiot, > or you can look for a way to read them that makes them consistent; the > latter may require accepting an interpretation that's different from your > preconceived notions. > >> Also this object of array type is not clearly defined in the C++ >> standards. >> What exactly is this non modifiable object of array type, is it an object >> or is it a type? > > You're kidding, right? A *non modifiable object* is an object. > >> >> If its an object then , as defined in the standards, an object is a >> region of storage, so where is this object stored? > > Wherever the compiler puts it. > >> It cannot be stored int he same region as its elements because that >> region of storage is modifiable. > > int arr[5]; > int arr0[5]; > arr = arr0; // error: arr is not a modifiable object > arr[0] = 3; // Ok: array element is modifiable > > -- So 'arr' is an object in its own right? I can understand this as array has a value of an address to the first element. So is it correct that 'arr' is a non modifiable object of array type that is not the same object as the modifiable integer objects it represents?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 12:08 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <201106011208541630-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #6027 |
On 2011-06-01 11:54:05 -1000, Paul said: > "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > news:2011060111285351246-pete@versatilecodingcom... >> On 2011-06-01 11:10:50 -1000, Paul said: >> >>> "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message >>> news:201106011031592971-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>>> On 2011-06-01 10:22:11 -1000, Paul said: >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that people can interpret the standards in different >>>>> ways, and when the majority of people in a given group come to a >>>>> consensus about the interpreted meaning, that is the defined meaning. >>>>> But a technical standard should define what it is written to define , >>>>> not a clique of people who have a common concencus of its >>>>> interpretation. >>>> >>>> I look forward to seeing your rewrite of the C++ standard with all the >>>> problems you perceive fixed so that no reader could possibly interpret >>>> it differently from what you intended. When will it be available? >>>> >>> There is no need for this sarcasm, I fully appreciate the mammoth task >>> of creating the C++ standard. >>> >>> But you cannot have it both ways, you want an array to be a non >>> modifiable object of array type when we discuss pointers to arrays, but >>> in other situations you want an array to be a sequence of objects. >> >> The two are not inherently inconsistent. And when you see potential >> conflicts in the way things are described you can either proclaim that >> they are irreconcilable and anyone trying to reconcile them is an >> idiot, or you can look for a way to read them that makes them >> consistent; the latter may require accepting an interpretation that's >> different from your preconceived notions. >> >>> Also this object of array type is not clearly defined in the C++ standards. >>> What exactly is this non modifiable object of array type, is it an >>> object or is it a type? >> >> You're kidding, right? A *non modifiable object* is an object. >> >>> >>> If its an object then , as defined in the standards, an object is a >>> region of storage, so where is this object stored? >> >> Wherever the compiler puts it. >> >>> It cannot be stored int he same region as its elements because that >>> region of storage is modifiable. >> >> int arr[5]; >> int arr0[5]; >> arr = arr0; // error: arr is not a modifiable object >> arr[0] = 3; // Ok: array element is modifiable >> >> -- > So 'arr' is an object in its own right? > I can understand this as array has a value of an address to the first element. That's not what the standard says. It says that the name of an array *decays* into a pointer to the first element in most contexts. > > So is it correct that 'arr' is a non modifiable object of array type > that is not the same object as the modifiable integer objects it > represents? That's far too metaphysical for me. -- 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 | 2011-06-01 23:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <%ezFp.29172$2E6.11493@newsfe18.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6033 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:201106011208541630-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-06-01 11:54:05 -1000, Paul said: > >>>>>> The problem is that people can interpret the standards in different >>>>>> ways, and when the majority of people in a given group come to a >>>>>> consensus about the interpreted meaning, that is the defined meaning. >>>>>> But a technical standard should define what it is written to define , >>>>>> not a clique of people who have a common concencus of its >>>>>> interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> I look forward to seeing your rewrite of the C++ standard with all the >>>>> problems you perceive fixed so that no reader could possibly interpret >>>>> it differently from what you intended. When will it be available? >>>>> >>>> There is no need for this sarcasm, I fully appreciate the mammoth task >>>> of creating the C++ standard. >>>> >>>> But you cannot have it both ways, you want an array to be a non >>>> modifiable object of array type when we discuss pointers to arrays, but >>>> in other situations you want an array to be a sequence of objects. >>> >>> The two are not inherently inconsistent. And when you see potential >>> conflicts in the way things are described you can either proclaim that >>> they are irreconcilable and anyone trying to reconcile them is an idiot, >>> or you can look for a way to read them that makes them consistent; the >>> latter may require accepting an interpretation that's different from >>> your preconceived notions. >>> >>>> Also this object of array type is not clearly defined in the C++ >>>> standards. >>>> What exactly is this non modifiable object of array type, is it an >>>> object or is it a type? >>> >>> You're kidding, right? A *non modifiable object* is an object. >>> >>>> >>>> If its an object then , as defined in the standards, an object is a >>>> region of storage, so where is this object stored? >>> >>> Wherever the compiler puts it. >>> >>>> It cannot be stored int he same region as its elements because that >>>> region of storage is modifiable. >>> >>> int arr[5]; >>> int arr0[5]; >>> arr = arr0; // error: arr is not a modifiable object >>> arr[0] = 3; // Ok: array element is modifiable >>> >>> -- >> So 'arr' is an object in its own right? >> I can understand this as array has a value of an address to the first >> element. > > That's not what the standard says. It says that the name of an array > *decays* into a pointer to the first element in most contexts. > >> >> So is it correct that 'arr' is a non modifiable object of array type that >> is not the same object as the modifiable integer objects it represents? > > That's far too metaphysical for me. > What is this non modifiable object of array type? Can you define exactly what this object is, or is it beyond you in some metaphysical way?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb11e43c-63a4-4830-a302-18b6d8091570@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6005 |
On Jun 1, 1:22 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> There is a problem with inconsistency in the terminology used the C++
> standards. For example the word "contains" .
> (1) An object of array type, which nobody around can even acknowledge ,
You're still hung up on the whole "array objects are not modifiable
thing, but its contained sub-objects are". I'm sorry - the standard
does mean that expressions of array type, which refer to a region of
memory which contains the sub-objects, is not modifiable, but the
individual sub-objects are modifiable. It is making a statement about
how expressions of array type are not modifiable. It is not making a
statement about how the entire region of memory is not modifiable but
the sub-pieces, the array elements, are.
> is
> described as some object that "contains" sub objects of element types.
> I can understand this *concept* sure but there is no physical object in
> memory that contains sub-objects.
class Foo { int x; };
Foo foo;
"foo" is a physical object in memory. "x" is a physical (sub-)object
in memory. Both take up a piece of memory. The region of memory of "x"
is a sub-region of the region of memory of "foo". That is, the region
of memory of "x" is contained within the region of memory of "foo".
Put another way, we are guaranteed that:
assert( (char*)&foo <= (char*)&x );
assert( (char*)&x + sizeof(x) <= (char*)&foo + sizeof(foo) );
(Optionally, that may require std::less. I don't care enough to look
up the arcane rules of if you can do pointer comparisons for pointers
obtained from the same complete object.)
> (2) An object(of class type) does not contain member functions. LOL
> This must be a joke because an array object can "contain" sub objects , as a
> concept but an object(of class type) cannot "contain" memeber function, as a
> concept.
Yep. The C++ source code of the member functions neither appears
inside the declaration nor definition of the object. Also, on
basically every implementation ever, the compiled assembly of the
member function does not exist inside the region of memory of the
object. Finally, the object does not "own" the member function - you
can have member functions without an object. Thus, the word "contains"
does not apply to objects and their member functions.
> The problem is that people can interpret the standards in different ways,
> and when the majority of people in a given group come to a consensus about
> the interpreted meaning, that is the defined meaning.
> But a technical standard should define what it is written to define , not a
> clique of people who have a common concencus of its interpretation.
Well, we're in agreement on that point. All of us just think that you
are wrong in your readings and interpretations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 23:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <yXyFp.28879$A05.15092@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6028 |
"Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb11e43c-63a4-4830-a302-18b6d8091570@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 1:22 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> There is a problem with inconsistency in the terminology used the C++
> standards. For example the word "contains" .
> (1) An object of array type, which nobody around can even acknowledge ,
--You're still hung up on the whole "array objects are not modifiable
--thing, but its contained sub-objects are". I'm sorry - the standard
--does mean that expressions of array type, which refer to a region of
--memory which contains the sub-objects, is not modifiable, but the
--individual sub-objects are modifiable. It is making a statement about
--how expressions of array type are not modifiable. It is not making a
--statement about how the entire region of memory is not modifiable but
--the sub-pieces, the array elements, are.
So you are saying that the standard is worng to say the "object" is non
modifiable?
It should say the expression is non modifiable or something like that?
> is
> described as some object that "contains" sub objects of element types.
> I can understand this *concept* sure but there is no physical object in
> memory that contains sub-objects.
-- class Foo { int x; };
-- Foo foo;
--"foo" is a physical object in memory. "x" is a physical (sub-)object
--in memory. Both take up a piece of memory. The region of memory of "x"
--is a sub-region of the region of memory of "foo". That is, the region
--of memory of "x" is contained within the region of memory of "foo".
--Put another way, we are guaranteed that:
-- assert( (char*)&foo <= (char*)&x );
-- assert( (char*)&x + sizeof(x) <= (char*)&foo + sizeof(foo) );
--(Optionally, that may require std::less. I don't care enough to look
--up the arcane rules of if you can do pointer comparisons for pointers
--obtained from the same complete object.)
I dont see what you are trying to say here. x is a sub-object of Foo?
class Foo{}
class Bar:public Foo{}
Bar b;
Does b have a sub-object of type Foo?
Is this also a sub-object but in a different way?
> (2) An object(of class type) does not contain member functions. LOL
> This must be a joke because an array object can "contain" sub objects , as
> a
> concept but an object(of class type) cannot "contain" memeber function, as
> a
> concept.
--Yep. The C++ source code of the member functions neither appears
--inside the declaration nor definition of the object.
The member function is declared inside the the class definiton.
--Also, on
--basically every implementation ever, the compiled assembly of the
--member function does not exist inside the region of memory of the
--object. Finally, the object does not "own" the member function - you
--can have member functions without an object. Thus, the word "contains"
--does not apply to objects and their member functions.
A member function is invoked on an object.
What do you mean by a member function without an object. Please give an
example.
> The problem is that people can interpret the standards in different ways,
> and when the majority of people in a given group come to a consensus about
> the interpreted meaning, that is the defined meaning.
> But a technical standard should define what it is written to define , not
> a
> clique of people who have a common concencus of its interpretation.
--Well, we're in agreement on that point. All of us just think that you
--are wrong in your readings and interpretations.
Glad your in the majority, bet it makes you feel good :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 23:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IYyFp.24889$Wy2.13874@newsfe23.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6028 |
"Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb11e43c-63a4-4830-a302-18b6d8091570@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 1:22 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> There is a problem with inconsistency in the terminology used the C++
> standards. For example the word "contains" .
> (1) An object of array type, which nobody around can even acknowledge ,
--You're still hung up on the whole "array objects are not modifiable
--thing, but its contained sub-objects are". I'm sorry - the standard
--does mean that expressions of array type, which refer to a region of
--memory which contains the sub-objects, is not modifiable, but the
--individual sub-objects are modifiable. It is making a statement about
--how expressions of array type are not modifiable. It is not making a
--statement about how the entire region of memory is not modifiable but
--the sub-pieces, the array elements, are.
So you are saying that the standard is worng to say the "object" is non
modifiable?
It should say the expression is non modifiable or something like that?
> is
> described as some object that "contains" sub objects of element types.
> I can understand this *concept* sure but there is no physical object in
> memory that contains sub-objects.
-- class Foo { int x; };
-- Foo foo;
--"foo" is a physical object in memory. "x" is a physical (sub-)object
--in memory. Both take up a piece of memory. The region of memory of "x"
--is a sub-region of the region of memory of "foo". That is, the region
--of memory of "x" is contained within the region of memory of "foo".
--Put another way, we are guaranteed that:
-- assert( (char*)&foo <= (char*)&x );
-- assert( (char*)&x + sizeof(x) <= (char*)&foo + sizeof(foo) );
--(Optionally, that may require std::less. I don't care enough to look
--up the arcane rules of if you can do pointer comparisons for pointers
--obtained from the same complete object.)
I dont see what you are trying to say here. x is a sub-object of Foo?
class Foo{}
class Bar:public Foo{}
Bar b;
Does b have a sub-object of type Foo?
Is this also a sub-object but in a different way?
> (2) An object(of class type) does not contain member functions. LOL
> This must be a joke because an array object can "contain" sub objects , as
> a
> concept but an object(of class type) cannot "contain" memeber function, as
> a
> concept.
--Yep. The C++ source code of the member functions neither appears
--inside the declaration nor definition of the object.
The member function is declared inside the the class definiton.
--Also, on
--basically every implementation ever, the compiled assembly of the
--member function does not exist inside the region of memory of the
--object. Finally, the object does not "own" the member function - you
--can have member functions without an object. Thus, the word "contains"
--does not apply to objects and their member functions.
A member function is invoked on an object.
What do you mean by a member function without an object. Please give an
example.
> The problem is that people can interpret the standards in different ways,
> and when the majority of people in a given group come to a consensus about
> the interpreted meaning, that is the defined meaning.
> But a technical standard should define what it is written to define , not
> a
> clique of people who have a common concencus of its interpretation.
--Well, we're in agreement on that point. All of us just think that you
--are wrong in your readings and interpretations.
Glad your in the majority, bet it makes you feel good :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 15:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44877149-f3a7-404e-82e6-362c013d86d0@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6038 |
On Jun 1, 3:17 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb11e43c-63a4-4830-a302-18b6d8091570@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 1, 1:22 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > There is a problem with inconsistency in the terminology used the C++
> > standards. For example the word "contains" .
> > (1) An object of array type, which nobody around can even acknowledge ,
>
> --You're still hung up on the whole "array objects are not modifiable
> --thing, but its contained sub-objects are". I'm sorry - the standard
> --does mean that expressions of array type, which refer to a region of
> --memory which contains the sub-objects, is not modifiable, but the
> --individual sub-objects are modifiable. It is making a statement about
> --how expressions of array type are not modifiable. It is not making a
> --statement about how the entire region of memory is not modifiable but
> --the sub-pieces, the array elements, are.
>
> So you are saying that the standard is worng to say the "object" is non
> modifiable?
> It should say the expression is non modifiable or something like that?
Pretty much, yeah. Let me reproduce my const example:
int x = 0;
int const& y = x;
x = 1;
I just modified the object referred to by "y", and it's not unusual to
say that "y" is unmodifiable.
> > is
> > described as some object that "contains" sub objects of element types.
> > I can understand this *concept* sure but there is no physical object in
> > memory that contains sub-objects.
>
> -- class Foo { int x; };
> -- Foo foo;
> --"foo" is a physical object in memory. "x" is a physical (sub-)object
> --in memory. Both take up a piece of memory. The region of memory of "x"
> --is a sub-region of the region of memory of "foo". That is, the region
> --of memory of "x" is contained within the region of memory of "foo".
> --Put another way, we are guaranteed that:
> -- assert( (char*)&foo <= (char*)&x );
> -- assert( (char*)&x + sizeof(x) <= (char*)&foo + sizeof(foo) );
> --(Optionally, that may require std::less. I don't care enough to look
> --up the arcane rules of if you can do pointer comparisons for pointers
> --obtained from the same complete object.)
>
> I dont see what you are trying to say here. x is a sub-object of Foo?
Yes.
> class Foo{}
> class Bar:public Foo{}
>
> Bar b;
>
> Does b have a sub-object of type Foo?
Yes.
> Is this also a sub-object but in a different way?
This is a sub-object. It is a base class sub-object. There are base
class sub-objects, class member sub-objects, union member sub-objects,
and array element sub-objects. There may be more kinds; that's all I
remember off the top of my head.
> > (2) An object(of class type) does not contain member functions. LOL
> > This must be a joke because an array object can "contain" sub objects , as
> > a
> > concept but an object(of class type) cannot "contain" memeber function, as
> > a
> > concept.
>
> --Yep. The C++ source code of the member functions neither appears
> --inside the declaration nor definition of the object.
> The member function is declared inside the the class definiton.
Yes. The class definition contains the member function. The object
definition does not contain the member function declaration nor
definition.
class Foo { public: void f(); }; //class definition
Foo foo; //object definition
> --Also, on
> --basically every implementation ever, the compiled assembly of the
> --member function does not exist inside the region of memory of the
> --object. Finally, the object does not "own" the member function - you
> --can have member functions without an object. Thus, the word "contains"
> --does not apply to objects and their member functions.
>
> A member function is invoked on an object.
> What do you mean by a member function without an object. Please give an
> example.
We've done this already. Here it is again:
class Foo { public: void f(); };
typedef void (Foo::*mem_func_ptr_t)();
mem_func_ptr_t mem_func_tr = & Foo::f;
There is a pointer to a member function. I am able to point to it. It
exists without any objects of type "Foo".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 23:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vuzFp.39066$6K4.2663@newsfe14.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6041 |
"Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44877149-f3a7-404e-82e6-362c013d86d0@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 3:17 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb11e43c-63a4-4830-a302-18b6d8091570@r35g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 1, 1:22 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > There is a problem with inconsistency in the terminology used the C++
> > standards. For example the word "contains" .
> > (1) An object of array type, which nobody around can even acknowledge ,
>
> --You're still hung up on the whole "array objects are not modifiable
> --thing, but its contained sub-objects are". I'm sorry - the standard
> --does mean that expressions of array type, which refer to a region of
> --memory which contains the sub-objects, is not modifiable, but the
> --individual sub-objects are modifiable. It is making a statement about
> --how expressions of array type are not modifiable. It is not making a
> --statement about how the entire region of memory is not modifiable but
> --the sub-pieces, the array elements, are.
>
> So you are saying that the standard is worng to say the "object" is non
> modifiable?
> It should say the expression is non modifiable or something like that?
--Pretty much, yeah. Let me reproduce my const example:
-- int x = 0;
-- int const& y = x;
-- x = 1;
--I just modified the object referred to by "y", and it's not unusual to
--say that "y" is unmodifiable.
But when you say 'y' is non modifiable you usually mean it cannot be
assigned to refer to another object.
> > is
> > described as some object that "contains" sub objects of element types.
> > I can understand this *concept* sure but there is no physical object in
> > memory that contains sub-objects.
>
> -- class Foo { int x; };
> -- Foo foo;
> --"foo" is a physical object in memory. "x" is a physical (sub-)object
> --in memory. Both take up a piece of memory. The region of memory of "x"
> --is a sub-region of the region of memory of "foo". That is, the region
> --of memory of "x" is contained within the region of memory of "foo".
> --Put another way, we are guaranteed that:
> -- assert( (char*)&foo <= (char*)&x );
> -- assert( (char*)&x + sizeof(x) <= (char*)&foo + sizeof(foo) );
> --(Optionally, that may require std::less. I don't care enough to look
> --up the arcane rules of if you can do pointer comparisons for pointers
> --obtained from the same complete object.)
>
> I dont see what you are trying to say here. x is a sub-object of Foo?
--Yes.
> class Foo{}
> class Bar:public Foo{}
>
> Bar b;
>
> Does b have a sub-object of type Foo?
--Yes.
> Is this also a sub-object but in a different way?
--This is a sub-object. It is a base class sub-object. There are base
--class sub-objects, class member sub-objects, union member sub-objects,
--and array element sub-objects. There may be more kinds; that's all I
--remember off the top of my head.
> > (2) An object(of class type) does not contain member functions. LOL
> > This must be a joke because an array object can "contain" sub objects ,
> > as
> > a
> > concept but an object(of class type) cannot "contain" memeber function,
> > as
> > a
> > concept.
>
> --Yep. The C++ source code of the member functions neither appears
> --inside the declaration nor definition of the object.
> The member function is declared inside the the class definiton.
--Yes. The class definition contains the member function. The object
--definition does not contain the member function declaration nor
--definition.
-- class Foo { public: void f(); }; //class definition
-- Foo foo; //object definition
The class defines the object type. Above you have declared an object of type
Foo, objects of type Foo are defined by the class Foo.
> --Also, on
> --basically every implementation ever, the compiled assembly of the
> --member function does not exist inside the region of memory of the
> --object. Finally, the object does not "own" the member function - you
> --can have member functions without an object. Thus, the word "contains"
> --does not apply to objects and their member functions.
>
> A member function is invoked on an object.
> What do you mean by a member function without an object. Please give an
> example.
--We've done this already. Here it is again:
-- class Foo { public: void f(); };
-- typedef void (Foo::*mem_func_ptr_t)();
-- mem_func_ptr_t mem_func_tr = & Foo::f;
--There is a pointer to a member function. I am able to point to it. It
--exists without any objects of type "Foo".
Yes fair enough but it's UB to invoke a member function without an object. I
agree that it is possible but IMO it's a bit of a hack to use the member
function as a standalone function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ed74694-0012-47aa-ab1f-93f326b19d46@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6050 |
On Jun 1, 3:58 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> -- Let me reproduce my const example:
> -- int x = 0;
> -- int const& y = x;
> -- x = 1;
> --I just modified the object referred to by "y", and it's not unusual to
> --say that "y" is unmodifiable.
>
> But when you say 'y' is non modifiable you usually mean it cannot be
> assigned to refer to another object.
Minor semantic quibble: In the above example, y refers to the same
object. The value of the object has changed. Ex:
int x[3] = {};
x[0] = 1; //line A
Line A doesn't create nor destroy any objects. It doesn't make
something refer to a new object. Line A merely changes the value of an
already existing object.
> > > (2) An object(of class type) does not contain member functions. LOL
> > > This must be a joke because an array object can "contain" sub objects ,
> > > as
> > > a
> > > concept but an object(of class type) cannot "contain" memeber function,
> > > as
> > > a
> > > concept.
>
> > --Yep. The C++ source code of the member functions neither appears
> > --inside the declaration nor definition of the object.
> > The member function is declared inside the the class definiton.
>
> --Yes. The class definition contains the member function. The object
> --definition does not contain the member function declaration nor
> --definition.
> -- class Foo { public: void f(); }; //class definition
> -- Foo foo; //object definition
>
> The class defines the object type. Above you have declared an object of type
> Foo, objects of type Foo are defined by the class Foo.
No. Please go reread the ODR and the other parts of the standards
which describe "definitions" and "declarations". The terminology is
quite clear.
class Foo {};
That is a declaration. It brings into scope the name "Foo". It is a
declaration of the name "Foo". It is also a definition; it is a
definition of a class - it satisfies one of the bullets of the
standard, in this case it is a declaration of a class name which has
the class body.
Foo x;
This is a declaration. It brings into scope the name "x". It is also a
definition; it is a definition of an object - it satisfies one of the
bullets of the standard, in this case it is a declaration of an object
name without anything else that would make it not a definition (such
as "extern").
An object is /not/ defined by the class definition. That is simply
confusing and incorrect terminology. The definition of the object, or
more specifically the name of the object, is the declaration which
brings the name into scope, and which satisfies the requirements of
being a definition (one requirement is no "extern").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 08:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <zhHFp.596$r52.500@newsfe02.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6054 |
"Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ed74694-0012-47aa-ab1f-93f326b19d46@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 3:58 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> -- Let me reproduce my const example:
> -- int x = 0;
> -- int const& y = x;
> -- x = 1;
> --I just modified the object referred to by "y", and it's not unusual to
> --say that "y" is unmodifiable.
>
> But when you say 'y' is non modifiable you usually mean it cannot be
> assigned to refer to another object.
--Minor semantic quibble: In the above example, y refers to the same
--object. The value of the object has changed. Ex:
-- int x[3] = {};
-- x[0] = 1; //line A
--Line A doesn't create nor destroy any objects. It doesn't make
--something refer to a new object. Line A merely changes the value of an
--already existing object.
No, Major error.
The reference is not changed unless is it made to alias another object.
> > > (2) An object(of class type) does not contain member functions. LOL
> > > This must be a joke because an array object can "contain" sub objects
> > > ,
> > > as
> > > a
> > > concept but an object(of class type) cannot "contain" memeber
> > > function,
> > > as
> > > a
> > > concept.
>
> > --Yep. The C++ source code of the member functions neither appears
> > --inside the declaration nor definition of the object.
> > The member function is declared inside the the class definiton.
>
> --Yes. The class definition contains the member function. The object
> --definition does not contain the member function declaration nor
> --definition.
> -- class Foo { public: void f(); }; //class definition
> -- Foo foo; //object definition
>
> The class defines the object type. Above you have declared an object of
> type
> Foo, objects of type Foo are defined by the class Foo.
--No. Please go reread the ODR and the other parts of the standards
--which describe "definitions" and "declarations". The terminology is
--quite clear.
-- class Foo {};
--That is a declaration. It brings into scope the name "Foo". It is a
--declaration of the name "Foo". It is also a definition; it is a
--definition of a class - it satisfies one of the bullets of the
--standard, in this case it is a declaration of a class name which has
--the class body.
-- Foo x;
--This is a declaration. It brings into scope the name "x". It is also a
--definition; it is a definition of an object - it satisfies one of the
--bullets of the standard, in this case it is a declaration of an object
--name without anything else that would make it not a definition (such
--as "extern").
--An object is /not/ defined by the class definition. That is simply
--confusing and incorrect terminology. The definition of the object, or
--more specifically the name of the object, is the declaration which
--brings the name into scope, and which satisfies the requirements of
--being a definition (one requirement is no "extern").
There is no definition for each object created. An object instance is not
defined it's type is defined, and that defintion stands for all objects of
the given type..
An object type is defined by a class.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 21:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bYwFp.30547$h35.17697@newsfe19.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5997 |
"Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message news:4DE694FE.20606@dignus.com... > Paul wrote: > >> >> Well I don't know what definitons you are speaking about. >> As far as I can tell, the way I see arrays and pointers is the correct >> way , and it never did me any harm. If the C++ standard has some >> definiton that suggests a pointer of type pointer-to-X can only ever >> point to a single X object and nothing else then I would probably ignore >> the C++ standard and carry on with the opinion that the comittee had all >> become brian dead idiots, TBH :) >> > > Oh, I'm disappointed to read that. I was hoping we could come to an > understanding that was rooted in the C/C++ language definitions (the > standard > documents) but I suppose I'm not able to explain things in a manner that > you > agree with. > > I'm afraid I will just have to drop things here. > > I wish you the best of luck in everything you do. > Ok np . We can agree to disagree. But I would still like to know what defintions you refer to. Please can you quote the defintion from the standard you are referring to. I cannot find any defintions that suggest a pointer of type T cannot point to more than one T. In fact I cannot even finds a defintion of a pointer in the C++ standards however I can in the C standards, but i don't know if the C standard is embraced into the C++ standard as part of the fundamental rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 16:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4DE6A338.1060909@dignus.com> |
| In reply to | #6000 |
Paul wrote:
>
> "Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message
> news:4DE694FE.20606@dignus.com...
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well I don't know what definitons you are speaking about.
>>> As far as I can tell, the way I see arrays and pointers is the
>>> correct way , and it never did me any harm. If the C++ standard has
>>> some definiton that suggests a pointer of type pointer-to-X can
>>> only ever point to a single X object and nothing else then I would
>>> probably ignore the C++ standard and carry on with the opinion that
>>> the comittee had all become brian dead idiots, TBH :)
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I'm disappointed to read that. I was hoping we could come to an
>> understanding that was rooted in the C/C++ language definitions (the
>> standard
>> documents) but I suppose I'm not able to explain things in a manner
>> that you
>> agree with.
>>
>> I'm afraid I will just have to drop things here.
>>
>> I wish you the best of luck in everything you do.
>>
> Ok np .
> We can agree to disagree.
> But I would still like to know what defintions you refer to.
> Please can you quote the defintion from the standard you are referring
> to.
> I cannot find any defintions that suggest a pointer of type T cannot
> point to more than one T. In fact I cannot even finds a defintion of a
> pointer in the C++ standards however I can in the C standards, but i
> don't know if the C standard is embraced into the C++ standard as part
> of the fundamental rules.
>
The definition of a pointer can be found in section 8.3.1 on page 131 of
the 1998
C++ standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)).
Appendix C of that same standard discusses compatibility between
the C and C++ languages. Section C.1 the relationship between the
programming
languages, section C.2 provides something similar for the C runtime library.
- Dave Rivers -
--
rivers@dignus.com Work: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <83yFp.38656$m_1.28961@newsfe22.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6009 |
"Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message news:4DE6A338.1060909@dignus.com... > Paul wrote: > >> >> "Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message >> news:4DE694FE.20606@dignus.com... >> >>> Paul wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Well I don't know what definitons you are speaking about. >>>> As far as I can tell, the way I see arrays and pointers is the correct >>>> way , and it never did me any harm. If the C++ standard has some >>>> definiton that suggests a pointer of type pointer-to-X can only ever >>>> point to a single X object and nothing else then I would probably >>>> ignore the C++ standard and carry on with the opinion that the comittee >>>> had all become brian dead idiots, TBH :) >>>> >>> >>> Oh, I'm disappointed to read that. I was hoping we could come to an >>> understanding that was rooted in the C/C++ language definitions (the >>> standard >>> documents) but I suppose I'm not able to explain things in a manner that >>> you >>> agree with. >>> >>> I'm afraid I will just have to drop things here. >>> >>> I wish you the best of luck in everything you do. >>> >> Ok np . >> We can agree to disagree. >> But I would still like to know what defintions you refer to. >> Please can you quote the defintion from the standard you are referring >> to. >> I cannot find any defintions that suggest a pointer of type T cannot >> point to more than one T. In fact I cannot even finds a defintion of a >> pointer in the C++ standards however I can in the C standards, but i >> don't know if the C standard is embraced into the C++ standard as part of >> the fundamental rules. >> > The definition of a pointer can be found in section 8.3.1 on page 131 of > the 1998 > C++ standard (ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)). > > Appendix C of that same standard discusses compatibility between > the C and C++ languages. Section C.1 the relationship between the > programming > languages, section C.2 provides something similar for the C runtime > library. > > I have only access to the draft 0xx standard ATM but I think its probably the same for these chapters. From appendix C and also from section 1.1 para 2 it seems that the C++ standard does seem to treat the C standard as a basic foundation on which the C++ standard is built, do you agree?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0881307c-e365-4785-86e8-d5a396edf051@l14g2000pro.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5976 |
On Jun 1, 9:33 am, Thomas David Rivers <riv...@dignus.com> wrote: > Paul wrote: > > Consider the following: > > > void* p1 = (void*)new int; > > void* p2 = (void*)new int[55]; > > > p1 points to a single integer. > > p2 points to an array of integers. > > > This is what I mean when I say 'ip' is a pointer to an array. I don't > > mean it's type, I am talking about what it points to. > > Oh ... uh... I'm not sure how to discuss this. > > When you say "I don't mean its type" - do you mean to imply that you are now > no longer talking about/referring to the C/C++ language definition, but > something else? I'll repeat what I've said before. When you say "x is a pointer to <Y>", this is a claim about the (static) type of x. When you say "x points to <Y>", this is a claim about the value of x at runtime. At least, that's how almost all reasonable people interpret it. Paul conflates the two terminologies, and he uses either one depending "on his mood". He claims that "x is a pointer to an array of int" is not a claim about the type of x, but merely a claim about the runtime value of x. He really ought to say "x points to" instead of "x is a pointer to", but Paul ought to do a lot of things differently w.r.t. his incorrect use of words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-27 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <befef7bf-4cce-4d1f-b8e9-2210beb29f4d@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5740 |
On May 27, 4:34 pm, Thomas David Rivers <riv...@dignus.com> wrote: > OK - let's review - so we know we're on the same page: > > int arr[5]; > > 'arr' is the name of the set of 5 contiguous `int'-typed elements. > > int *ip; > > `ip' is the name of a variable that can contain the address of an `int', > it is a "pointer to int". > > And: > > int i; > > `i' is the name of an `int'-tpe variable. > > The expression: > > ip=&i; > > computes the address of `i', and places that value into the variable > `ip'. > > This is what we've agreed to thus far... right? If you care, I've deciphered what Paul's on about. I don't feel like arguing with him, but it's painful watching you struggle as I did to decipher what he's rambling about. I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of what Paul thinks, but it's more or less this. Paul thinks that there are two different kinds of array objects. Consider: int x[5]; Paul agrees that there is a segment of memory which contains 5 contiguous int objects. Depending on context (this is the part I haven't fully worked out yet), Paul also thinks that there is some other kind of object of array type. He thinks that this second kind of array object, quote unquote "array type object", contains merely a pointer to the first int object of the 5 int contiguous int objects. He thinks that this pointer occupies a distinct and separate piece of memory from the 5 contiguous int objects. He thinks that the terms "array object" and "object of array type" do not refer to the region of memory of the 5 contiguous int objects. His reason for believing so is one part of the C++ standard which mentions that array objects are not modifiable. As I've tried to explain to him, the individual array element sub-objects are modifiable, but the array object is not modifiable. What that means is that the individual elements, if of built-in type, may appear on the left hand side of a built in assignment operator, but expressions of array type may not appear on the left hand side of the build in assignment operator. It's a statement about lvalues and rvalues and the C++ type system, not of any sort of restrictions on writes to the array elements or whatever. Paul thinks that this is a contradiction in terms. He claims that it is nonsensical to say that the whole array object is nonmodifiable, but individual elements contained therein are modifiable. That's about it really. So, if you want to argue with Paul, try to explain slowly and in great detail how the whole array object can be called "not modifiable", but the individual contained array elements can be modifiable. As far as I can tell, that's the basis of his misunderstanding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-28 03:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4RYDp.27158$yI6.8318@newsfe06.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5746 |
"Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:befef7bf-4cce-4d1f-b8e9-2210beb29f4d@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 4:34 pm, Thomas David Rivers <riv...@dignus.com> wrote:
> OK - let's review - so we know we're on the same page:
>
> int arr[5];
>
> 'arr' is the name of the set of 5 contiguous `int'-typed elements.
>
> int *ip;
>
> `ip' is the name of a variable that can contain the address of an `int',
> it is a "pointer to int".
>
> And:
>
> int i;
>
> `i' is the name of an `int'-tpe variable.
>
> The expression:
>
> ip=&i;
>
> computes the address of `i', and places that value into the variable
> `ip'.
>
> This is what we've agreed to thus far... right?
--If you care, I've deciphered what Paul's on about. I don't feel like
--arguing with him, but it's painful watching you struggle as I did to
--decipher what he's rambling about.
--I'm not exactly sure of the specifics of what Paul thinks, but it's
--more or less this. Paul thinks that there are two different kinds of
--array objects. Consider:
-- int x[5];
--Paul agrees that there is a segment of memory which contains 5
--contiguous int objects. Depending on context (this is the part I
--haven't fully worked out yet), Paul also thinks that there is some
--other kind of object of array type. He thinks that this second kind of
--array object, quote unquote "array type object", contains merely a
--pointer to the first int object of the 5 int contiguous int objects.
--He thinks that this pointer occupies a distinct and separate piece of
--memory from the 5 contiguous int objects. He thinks that the terms
--"array object" and "object of array type" do not refer to the region
--of memory of the 5 contiguous int objects.
--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.
The fact that the standard defines an object of array type to be non
modifiable, is additional information that supports my opinion about the
object 'arr' not being the same entity as the 5 integers objects. This
supports my view because the 5 integer objects are modifiable and 'arr'
isn't, and the as the same object cannot be both modifiable and also
non-modifiable they must be different objects.
-- As I've tried to
--explain to him, the individual array element sub-objects are
--modifiable, but the array object is not modifiable.
This does not make sense according to you definition of an array object
being the contiguous elements. If the elements are modified then the block
of memory that contains these elements is aslo modified.
--What that means is
--that the individual elements, if of built-in type, may appear on the
--left hand side of a built in assignment operator, but expressions of
--array type may not appear on the left hand side of the build in
--assignment operator. It's a statement about lvalues and rvalues and
--the C++ type system, not of any sort of restrictions on writes to the
--array elements or whatever. Paul thinks that this is a contradiction
--in terms. He claims that it is nonsensical to say that the whole array
--object is nonmodifiable, but individual elements contained therein are
--modifiable.
An object cannot be modifiable and non-modifiable at the same time. It is
either one or the other.
If one object is modifiable and another is non-modifiable then they must be
different objects.
--That's about it really. So, if you want to argue with Paul, try to
--explain slowly and in great detail how the whole array object can be
--called "not modifiable", but the individual contained array elements
--can be modifiable. As far as I can tell, that's the basis of his
--misunderstanding.
An object is a region of storage , right?
If that region of storage is non modifiable , it cannot be modified. You
cannot define a region of storage non-modifiable, yet also define it as
modifiable at the same time , this is nonsensical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-28 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29661466-b6ec-4778-a77e-b00d00fa84f2@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5749 |
On May 28, 5:11 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8qqEp.16338$ue1.14976@newsfe28.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5790 |
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:29661466-b6ec-4778-a77e-b00d00fa84f2@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On May 28, 5:11 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> 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.
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
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.
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 07:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9cfe168-3af5-4573-b1d5-fdaafffa6198@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5794 |
On May 29, 2:50 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Öö Tiib" <oot...@hot.ee> wrote in message
>
> news:29661466-b6ec-4778-a77e-b00d00fa84f2@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On May 28, 5:11 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-29 15:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Kr2dnV7lH7QExX_QnZ2dnUVZ7sCdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5801 |
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
>>
>> news:29661466-b6ec-4778-a77e-b00d00fa84f2@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 28, 5:11 am, "Paul"<pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Joshua Maurice"<joshuamaur...@gmail.com> 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.
HTH.
/Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web