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 3 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 21 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 22:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s4Kop.3566$Ir.2075@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3413 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniq6f99.1u0k.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-04-09, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: <snip> > > In this sequence of followups: > > - I wrote: "Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour." > > - You replied: "A null pointer is a valid object and well defined in > the C++ standards." > > - I replied with a paragraph from the C++ standard that gave > dereferencing of the null pointer as an example of an undefined > operation. > > If you don't care what the effect of dereferencing the null pointer > is, why did you followup about it? > Why did you write? : "Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour." Because I said a null pointer is a valid object, you wrote this in a twisted attempt to somehow suggest it was undefined. As I said , I don't give a fuck what you think about dereferencing it, its a valid fucking object. An it points to exactly fuck all. This blows your whole fucking argument out the window because it further proves that a valid pointer of type pointer-to-T doesn't always point to a T. You said an int* can only point to an int, and you are fucking wrong. Accept it and stop being a total fucking arsehole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 12:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniq9491.2v5d.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3427 |
On 2011-04-11, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:slrniq6f99.1u0k.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> On 2011-04-09, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: ><snip> >> >> In this sequence of followups: >> >> - I wrote: "Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour." >> >> - You replied: "A null pointer is a valid object and well defined in >> the C++ standards." >> >> - I replied with a paragraph from the C++ standard that gave >> dereferencing of the null pointer as an example of an undefined >> operation. >> >> If you don't care what the effect of dereferencing the null pointer >> is, why did you followup about it? >> > Why did you write? : > "Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour." > > Because I said a null pointer is a valid object, you wrote this in a twisted > attempt to somehow suggest it was undefined. > As I said , I don't give a fuck what you think about dereferencing it, its a > valid fucking object. An it points to exactly fuck all. > This blows your whole fucking argument out the window because it further > proves that a valid pointer of type pointer-to-T doesn't always point to a > T. I did not make a twisted attepmt to suggest that it was undefined. What I did was post paragraph 4 of section 1.9 (Program execution) of the C++ standard: Certain other operations are described in this International Standard as undefined (for example, the effect of dereferencing the null pointer). [Note: this International Standard imposes no requirements on the behavior of programs that contain undefined behavior. ] I accept exactly what is in the C++ standard, such as, the effect of dereferencing the null pointer is undefined. Concerning a declaration like int a1i[5], *pi = a1i; where a standard conversion is used to convert the initializer expression, I accept exactly what is in the C++ standard. Here is paragraph 1 of section 4.2 (Array-to-pointer conversion): An lvalue or rvalue of type "array of N T" or "array of unknown bound of T" can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to T." The result is a pointer to the first element of the array. As a result of the initialization, pi, a pointer to int, points to the int that is the first elemement of the array. I also accept exactly what is in the C++ standard about differences between polymorphic and and non-polymorphic types, such as the following from paragraph 1 of section 1.8 (The C++ object model). Some objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates information associated with each such object that makes it possible to determine that object's type during program execution. For other objects, the interpretation of the values found therein is determined by the type of the expressions (5) used to access them. With a non-polymorphic type, such as an int or an array, the value of an object is determined by the type of expression used to access it. Mistakes in C++ programs can be avoided by accepting exactly what is in the C++ standard, rather than accepting a fallacy, such as pointers and arrays are the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 19:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ed1pp.3679$Ir.7@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3500 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniq9491.2v5d.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-04-11, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >> news:slrniq6f99.1u0k.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >>> On 2011-04-09, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >><snip> >>> >>> In this sequence of followups: >>> >>> - I wrote: "Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour." >>> >>> - You replied: "A null pointer is a valid object and well defined in >>> the C++ standards." >>> >>> - I replied with a paragraph from the C++ standard that gave >>> dereferencing of the null pointer as an example of an undefined >>> operation. >>> >>> If you don't care what the effect of dereferencing the null pointer >>> is, why did you followup about it? >>> >> Why did you write? : >> "Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour." >> >> Because I said a null pointer is a valid object, you wrote this in a >> twisted >> attempt to somehow suggest it was undefined. >> As I said , I don't give a fuck what you think about dereferencing it, >> its a >> valid fucking object. An it points to exactly fuck all. >> This blows your whole fucking argument out the window because it further >> proves that a valid pointer of type pointer-to-T doesn't always point to >> a >> T. > > I did not make a twisted attepmt to suggest that it was undefined. What I > did was post paragraph 4 of section 1.9 (Program execution) of the C++ > standard: > > Certain other operations are described in this International > Standard as undefined (for example, the effect of dereferencing > the null pointer). [Note: this International Standard imposes no > requirements on the behavior of programs that contain undefined > behavior. ] > > I accept exactly what is in the C++ standard, such as, the effect > of dereferencing the null pointer is undefined. But this does not acknowledge what I said, that a null pointer is a valid object. You attempt to divert the conversation to what happens when the pointer is dereferenced. The argument is about what a pointer to an array points to, not what happens when its dereferenced. If you want to talk about what happens when pointer is dereferenced then refer to the relevant section in the standards that fully explains what happens when a pointer to an array is dereferenced. When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an (n-1) dimensional array. The idiotic thing is when I initially mentioned this , you said it was not relevant section of the standards because it was speaking about dereferencing a pointer to an array. It is in fact exactly the relevant section of the standard that suits this argument. <snip> > > Mistakes in C++ programs can be avoided by accepting exactly what > is in the C++ standard, rather than accepting a fallacy, such as > pointers and arrays are the same. Well accpet what the standards states about dereferencing pointers to arrays instead of avoiding it like the plague and perhaps you will make fewer mistakes :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 12:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniqbnhu.sul.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3512 |
On 2011-04-12, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> The argument is about what a pointer to an array points to, not what happens
> when its dereferenced.
> If you want to talk about what happens when pointer is dereferenced then
> refer to the relevant section in the standards that fully explains what
> happens when a pointer to an array is dereferenced.
> When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an (n-1) dimensional array.
A pointer to an array points to an array. What happens when a
pointer is dereferenced is given in paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1
(Unary operators):
The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which
it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer
to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the
object or function to which the expression points. If the type of
the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T.
[Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can
be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited
ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must
not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1.]
Because dereferencing a pointer to T results in a T, dereferencing a
pointer to an array results in an array.
It is important to undestand what the C++ standard means by a
pointer to an array. Here is a example from section 8.1 (Type
Names) of the C++ standard:
int // int i
int * // int *pi
int *[3] // int *p[3]
int (*)[3] // int (*p3i)[3]
int *() // int *f()
int (*)(double) // int (*pf)(double)
name respectively the types "int," "pointer to int," "array of 3
pointers to int," "pointer to array of 3 int," "function of (no
parameters) returning pointer to int," and "pointer to a function
of (double) returning int.
The declaration
int (*p3i)[3];
declares a pointer to an array. The declaration
int *pi;
declares a pointer to an int.
The output from the following program confirms that.
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
int main() {
int a3i[3], *pi=a3i, (*p3i)[3]=&a3i;
std::cout<<"typeid( pi )="<<typeid( pi ).name()<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"typeid(*pi )="<<typeid(*pi ).name()<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"typeid( p3i)="<<typeid( p3i).name()<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"typeid(*p3i)="<<typeid(*p3i).name()<<std::endl;
}
> The idiotic thing is when I initially mentioned this , you said it was not
> relevant section of the standards because it was speaking about
> dereferencing a pointer to an array. It is in fact exactly the relevant
> section of the standard that suits this argument.
Here is what I wrote (near the bottom of Message-ID:
<slrnios40v.19l0.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net>)
As far as I can tell there in no recent thread titled "You missed
something"; there is one titled "You snipped something". Quotes
you posted there, such as
"If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of
subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointedto
(n - 1 )dimensional array"
and
"the subscript operator [] is interpreted in such a way that E1[E2]
is identical to *((E1)+(E2))"
have nothing to do with declarations like
int *p = new int[4]
that my posts have been about.
Because that declaration does not contain either the * operator or
the subscript operator, parts of the C++ standard about those
operators are not relevant to that declaration.
That declaration initializes a pointer to int, named p, with the
pointer to int returned by "new int[4]". "new int[4]" returns an
pointer to int according to paragraph 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) of
the C++ standard. That paragraph ends with:
If the entity is a nonarray object, the new-expression returns
a pointer to the object created. If it is an array, the
new-expression returns a pointer to the initial element of
the array.
That is what is in the C++ standard; I accept exactly what is in
the standard.
[snip]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 14:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2gCpp.51535$7u3.43178@newsfe04.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3588 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:slrniqbnhu.sul.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> On 2011-04-12, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
>> The argument is about what a pointer to an array points to, not what
>> happens
>> when its dereferenced.
>> If you want to talk about what happens when pointer is dereferenced then
>> refer to the relevant section in the standards that fully explains what
>> happens when a pointer to an array is dereferenced.
>> When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an (n-1) dimensional
>> array.
>
> A pointer to an array points to an array. What happens when a
> pointer is dereferenced is given in paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1
> (Unary operators):
>
> The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which
> it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer
> to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the
> object or function to which the expression points. If the type of
> the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T.
> [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can
> be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited
> ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must
> not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1.]
>
> Because dereferencing a pointer to T results in a T, dereferencing a
> pointer to an array results in an array.
>
> It is important to undestand what the C++ standard means by a
> pointer to an array. Here is a example from section 8.1 (Type
> Names) of the C++ standard:
>
> int // int i
> int * // int *pi
> int *[3] // int *p[3]
> int (*)[3] // int (*p3i)[3]
> int *() // int *f()
> int (*)(double) // int (*pf)(double)
>
> name respectively the types "int," "pointer to int," "array of 3
> pointers to int," "pointer to array of 3 int," "function of (no
> parameters) returning pointer to int," and "pointer to a function
> of (double) returning int.
>
> The declaration
>
> int (*p3i)[3];
>
> declares a pointer to an array. The declaration
>
> int *pi;
>
> declares a pointer to an int.
>
> The output from the following program confirms that.
>
> #include <iostream>
> #include <typeinfo>
>
> int main() {
> int a3i[3], *pi=a3i, (*p3i)[3]=&a3i;
>
> std::cout<<"typeid( pi )="<<typeid( pi ).name()<<std::endl;
> std::cout<<"typeid(*pi )="<<typeid(*pi ).name()<<std::endl;
> std::cout<<"typeid( p3i)="<<typeid( p3i).name()<<std::endl;
> std::cout<<"typeid(*p3i)="<<typeid(*p3i).name()<<std::endl;
> }
>
>> The idiotic thing is when I initially mentioned this , you said it was
>> not
>> relevant section of the standards because it was speaking about
>> dereferencing a pointer to an array. It is in fact exactly the relevant
>> section of the standard that suits this argument.
>
> Here is what I wrote (near the bottom of Message-ID:
> <slrnios40v.19l0.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net>)
>
> As far as I can tell there in no recent thread titled "You missed
> something"; there is one titled "You snipped something". Quotes
> you posted there, such as
>
> "If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of
> subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointedto
> (n - 1 )dimensional array"
>
> and
>
> "the subscript operator [] is interpreted in such a way that E1[E2]
> is identical to *((E1)+(E2))"
>
> have nothing to do with declarations like
>
> int *p = new int[4]
>
> that my posts have been about.
>
> Because that declaration does not contain either the * operator or
> the subscript operator, parts of the C++ standard about those
> operators are not relevant to that declaration.
>
> That declaration initializes a pointer to int, named p, with the
> pointer to int returned by "new int[4]". "new int[4]" returns an
> pointer to int according to paragraph 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) of
> the C++ standard. That paragraph ends with:
>
> If the entity is a nonarray object, the new-expression returns
> a pointer to the object created. If it is an array, the
> new-expression returns a pointer to the initial element of
> the array.
>
> That is what is in the C++ standard; I accept exactly what is in
> the standard.
>
No you dont accept the relevant sections of the C++ standards. You still say
the section that specifically details pointers to arrays is not relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 12:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniqed4c.1o3f.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3670 |
On 2011-04-14, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:slrniqbnhu.sul.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> On 2011-04-12, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [snip] >>> The idiotic thing is when I initially mentioned this , you said it was >>> not >>> relevant section of the standards because it was speaking about >>> dereferencing a pointer to an array. It is in fact exactly the relevant >>> section of the standard that suits this argument. >> >> Here is what I wrote (near the bottom of Message-ID: >> <slrnios40v.19l0.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net>) >> >> As far as I can tell there in no recent thread titled "You missed >> something"; there is one titled "You snipped something". Quotes >> you posted there, such as >> >> "If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of >> subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointedto >> (n - 1 )dimensional array" >> >> and >> >> "the subscript operator [] is interpreted in such a way that E1[E2] >> is identical to *((E1)+(E2))" >> >> have nothing to do with declarations like >> >> int *p = new int[4] >> >> that my posts have been about. >> >> Because that declaration does not contain either the * operator or >> the subscript operator, parts of the C++ standard about those >> operators are not relevant to that declaration. >> >> That declaration initializes a pointer to int, named p, with the >> pointer to int returned by "new int[4]". "new int[4]" returns an >> pointer to int according to paragraph 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) of >> the C++ standard. That paragraph ends with: >> >> If the entity is a nonarray object, the new-expression returns >> a pointer to the object created. If it is an array, the >> new-expression returns a pointer to the initial element of >> the array. >> >> That is what is in the C++ standard; I accept exactly what is in >> the standard. >> > No you dont accept the relevant sections of the C++ standards. You still say > the section that specifically details pointers to arrays is not relevant. What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is not relevant to the statement int *p = new int[4] because there are no pointers to arrays in the statement, only pointers to int. A relevant part of the C++ standards for that statement is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) that I quoted (see above). What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is relevant to parts of a C++ program that use a pointer to an array, such as one declared by int (*p1i)[5]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 19:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MSGpp.13159$tp6.469@newsfe25.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3711 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniqed4c.1o3f.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-04-14, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >> news:slrniqbnhu.sul.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >>> On 2011-04-12, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > [snip] >>>> The idiotic thing is when I initially mentioned this , you said it was >>>> not >>>> relevant section of the standards because it was speaking about >>>> dereferencing a pointer to an array. It is in fact exactly the relevant >>>> section of the standard that suits this argument. >>> >>> Here is what I wrote (near the bottom of Message-ID: >>> <slrnios40v.19l0.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net>) >>> >>> As far as I can tell there in no recent thread titled "You missed >>> something"; there is one titled "You snipped something". Quotes >>> you posted there, such as >>> >>> "If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of >>> subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointedto >>> (n - 1 )dimensional array" >>> >>> and >>> >>> "the subscript operator [] is interpreted in such a way that E1[E2] >>> is identical to *((E1)+(E2))" >>> >>> have nothing to do with declarations like >>> >>> int *p = new int[4] >>> >>> that my posts have been about. >>> >>> Because that declaration does not contain either the * operator or >>> the subscript operator, parts of the C++ standard about those >>> operators are not relevant to that declaration. >>> >>> That declaration initializes a pointer to int, named p, with the >>> pointer to int returned by "new int[4]". "new int[4]" returns an >>> pointer to int according to paragraph 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) of >>> the C++ standard. That paragraph ends with: >>> >>> If the entity is a nonarray object, the new-expression returns >>> a pointer to the object created. If it is an array, the >>> new-expression returns a pointer to the initial element of >>> the array. >>> >>> That is what is in the C++ standard; I accept exactly what is in >>> the standard. >>> >> No you dont accept the relevant sections of the C++ standards. You still >> say >> the section that specifically details pointers to arrays is not relevant. > > What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is not relevant to > the > statement > > int *p = new int[4] > > because there are no pointers to arrays in the statement, only pointers to > int. A relevant part of the C++ standards for that statement is paragraph > 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) that I quoted (see above). > p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints, not only to one single int. > What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is relevant to parts > of > a C++ program that use a pointer to an array, such as one declared by > > int (*p1i)[5] > No the C++ standard is relevant to all C++ arrays. The standard defines the above pointer type can point to a 2d array, and an int* can point to a 1d array. When people like Bjarne Stroustrup say that a char* can point to a single char or an array of chars, who is more likely to be correct him or someone like you who directly disagrees with this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 12:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniqgvse.23ag.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3714 |
On 2011-04-14, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:slrniqed4c.1o3f.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... [snip] >> What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is not relevant to >> the >> statement >> >> int *p = new int[4] >> >> because there are no pointers to arrays in the statement, only pointers to >> int. A relevant part of the C++ standards for that statement is paragraph >> 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) that I quoted (see above). >> > p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints, not only to one single int. No, p is a pointer to an int. If it were a pointer to an array of 4 ints, then the byte address that the result of the expression p+1 points to would be the byte address that p points plus 4*sizeof(int). However, the byte address of what that expression points to is the byte address that p points to plus sizeof(int). >> What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is relevant to parts >> of >> a C++ program that use a pointer to an array, such as one declared by >> >> int (*p1i)[5] >> > No the C++ standard is relevant to all C++ arrays. The standard defines the > above pointer type can point to a 2d array, and an int* can point to a 1d > array. I did not state that the C++ standard was not relevant to all C++ arrays. I have stated that what is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is not relevant to a C++ statement where there are no pointers to arrays. Exactly where (section and paragraph) does the C++ standard state that a pointer to a 1d array can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point to a 1d element of a 2d array? If a pointer to a 1d array could point to a 2d array, the last initialization in the declaration int a2i[3][5], (*p2i)[3][5] = &a2i, (*p1i)[5] = p2i; that tries to initialize a pointer to a 1d array with a pointer to a 2d array would be allowed, but it isn't. Similarly, if a pointer to int could point to a 1d array of int, the last initialization in the declaration int a1i[5], (*p1i)[5] = &a1i, *pi = p1i; would be allowed, but it isn't. > When people like Bjarne Stroustrup say that a char* can point to a single > char or an array of chars, who is more likely to be correct him or someone > like you who directly disagrees with this? Details are sometimes omitted from what is said about C++. Bjarne Stroustrup went into details in "The C++ Programming Language". According to that book (page 91 of the Special Edition): "The name of an array can be used as a pointer to its initial element." Part of an example on the next page of the book is char v[] = "Annemarie"; char* p = v; // implicit conversion of char[] to char* When Bjarne Stroustrup goes into the details, he says that the name of an array is converted to a pointer to an element of the array, not to a pointer to the array. In C++ pointers are typed; "pointer to char" and "pointer to array of char" are different types.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36fce640-87bf-4e9d-9349-2236850f7666@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3769 |
On Apr 15, 6:25 pm, "A. Bolmarcich" <agge...@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote: > > > p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints, not only to one single int. > > No, p is a pointer to an int. If it were a pointer to an array of > 4 ints, then the byte address that the result of the expression > > p+1 > > points to would be the byte address that p points plus > 4*sizeof(int). However, the byte address of what that expression > points to is the byte address that p points to plus sizeof(int). Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to Paul before. That'll probably convince him. At last, our long national nightmare is over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-16 08:02 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <90rmj2FojcU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3776 |
On 04/16/11 06:07 AM, gwowen wrote: > On Apr 15, 6:25 pm, "A. Bolmarcich"<agge...@earl-grey.cloud9.net> > wrote: >> >>> p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints, not only to one single int. >> >> No, p is a pointer to an int. If it were a pointer to an array of >> 4 ints, then the byte address that the result of the expression >> >> p+1 >> >> points to would be the byte address that p points plus >> 4*sizeof(int). However, the byte address of what that expression >> points to is the byte address that p points to plus sizeof(int). > > Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to > Paul before. That'll probably convince him. > At last, our long national nightmare is over. Do you really expect someone who don't know whether the C++ language has one or more standards to grasp such a clear and simple bit of logic? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 22:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pF2qp.1221$_c3.618@newsfe26.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3789 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:90rmj2FojcU2@mid.individual.net... > On 04/16/11 06:07 AM, gwowen wrote: >> On Apr 15, 6:25 pm, "A. Bolmarcich"<agge...@earl-grey.cloud9.net> >> wrote: >>> >>>> p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints, not only to one single int. >>> >>> No, p is a pointer to an int. If it were a pointer to an array of >>> 4 ints, then the byte address that the result of the expression >>> >>> p+1 >>> >>> points to would be the byte address that p points plus >>> 4*sizeof(int). However, the byte address of what that expression >>> points to is the byte address that p points to plus sizeof(int). >> >> Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to >> Paul before. That'll probably convince him. >> At last, our long national nightmare is over. > > Do you really expect someone who don't know whether the C++ language has > one or more standards to grasp such a clear and simple bit of logic? > That would be you then. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e7a66a9-6442-41e8-81fa-e8ef10d8bbc2@r14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3789 |
On Apr 15, 9:02 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to > > Paul before. That'll probably convince him. > > At last, our long national nightmare is over. > > Do you really expect someone who don't know whether the C++ language has > one or more standards to grasp such a clear and simple bit of logic? Well, no. (Actually I was being facetious - this point has been made hundreds of times before, and that's just by those people whos posts I read. My point, which I concede to be unclear, as sarcasm and facetiousness so often are on Usenet, was that since Paul was not swayed by this argument the first 100 times, making it again was a waste of perfectly good electrons)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 23:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mf3qp.36385$bT6.6739@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3799 |
"gwowen" <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5e7a66a9-6442-41e8-81fa-e8ef10d8bbc2@r14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... >On Apr 15, 9:02 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to >> > Paul before. That'll probably convince him. >> > At last, our long national nightmare is over. >> >> Do you really expect someone who don't know whether the C++ language has >> one or more standards to grasp such a clear and simple bit of logic? >Well, no. (Actually I was being facetious - this point has been made >hundreds of times before, and that's just by those people whos posts I >read. My point, which I concede to be unclear, as sarcasm and >facetiousness so often are on Usenet, was that since Paul was not >swayed by this argument the first 100 times, making it again was a >waste of perfectly good electrons) What has been argued 100 times before is that an char* can point to an array of chars. Your argument against this is incorrect , whether you say it has been said 100 times of 20trillions times makes no difference, its wrong. Why do you persisit in being wrong? Why not just accept the truth and be done with it? LOL you guys are so comical its unbelievable. You would argue that the sky wasn't blue, in fact someone on this forum actually made a serious attempt to do this. Others have attempted to argue that there is only one C++ standard, I mean c'mon guys get real and accept when you are wrong, and move on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-16 10:10 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <90ru2aFojcU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3805 |
On 04/16/11 10:01 AM, Paul wrote: > > "gwowen"<gwowen@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:5e7a66a9-6442-41e8-81fa-e8ef10d8bbc2@r14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 15, 9:02 pm, Ian Collins<ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to >>>> Paul before. That'll probably convince him. >>>> At last, our long national nightmare is over. >>> >>> Do you really expect someone who don't know whether the C++ language has >>> one or more standards to grasp such a clear and simple bit of logic? > >> Well, no. (Actually I was being facetious - this point has been made >> hundreds of times before, and that's just by those people whos posts I >> read. My point, which I concede to be unclear, as sarcasm and >> facetiousness so often are on Usenet, was that since Paul was not >> swayed by this argument the first 100 times, making it again was a >> waste of perfectly good electrons) > > > What has been argued 100 times before is that an char* can point to an array > of chars. That should be "a char*". A char* can point to an array of cabbages, but that does not make a char* a cabbage. > Others have attempted to argue that there is only one C++ > standard, There is only one language standard. Care to cite a reference to pointer types in another? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 23:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <XA3qp.24568$KZ7.10455@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3806 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:90ru2aFojcU6@mid.individual.net... > On 04/16/11 10:01 AM, Paul wrote: >>>>> Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to >>>>> Paul before. That'll probably convince him. >>>>> At last, our long national nightmare is over. >>>> >>>> Do you really expect someone who don't know whether the C++ language >>>> has >>>> one or more standards to grasp such a clear and simple bit of logic? >> >>> Well, no. (Actually I was being facetious - this point has been made >>> hundreds of times before, and that's just by those people whos posts I >>> read. My point, which I concede to be unclear, as sarcasm and >>> facetiousness so often are on Usenet, was that since Paul was not >>> swayed by this argument the first 100 times, making it again was a >>> waste of perfectly good electrons) >> >> >> What has been argued 100 times before is that an char* can point to an >> array >> of chars. > > That should be "a char*". A char* can point to an array of cabbages, but > that does not make a char* a cabbage. > No but it makes it a pointer to an array of cabbages. >> Others have attempted to argue that there is only one C++ >> standard, > > There is only one language standard. Care to cite a reference to pointer > types in another? > No there is more than one standard relevant to the C++ langauge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ioaefo$j0k$1@raid.furrfu.com> |
| In reply to | #3789 |
In article <90rmj2FojcU2@mid.individual.net>
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 04/16/11 06:07 AM, gwowen wrote:
>> Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to
>> Paul before. That'll probably convince him.
>> At last, our long national nightmare is over.
>
>Do you really expect someone who don't know whether the C++ language has
>one or more standards to grasp such a clear and simple bit of logic?
What I've seen (mostly quotes the last month or so) suggests that
Paul lacks even the slightest understanding of noun/verb number
agreement, and likely any understanding of apostrophes.
Years ago, I inherited part of a project from a coworker who was
leaving, to my relief. The phrasing I had at that time was, "couldn't
program his way out of a wet paper bag." I don't know what Paul's
*code* looks like, but his reasoning reminds me of that situation.
Alas, the clueless rarely resign from Usenet.
--
Drew Lawson | "Look! A big distracting thing!"
| -- Crow T. Robot.
|
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ys3qp.24566$KZ7.17054@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3803 |
"Drew Lawson" <drew@furrfu.invalid> wrote in message news:ioaefo$j0k$1@raid.furrfu.com... > In article <90rmj2FojcU2@mid.individual.net> > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>On 04/16/11 06:07 AM, gwowen wrote: >>> Hey. There's a novel point. No-one has ever made that observation to >>> Paul before. That'll probably convince him. >>> At last, our long national nightmare is over. >> >>Do you really expect someone who don't know whether the C++ language has >>one or more standards to grasp such a clear and simple bit of logic? > > What I've seen (mostly quotes the last month or so) suggests that > Paul lacks even the slightest understanding of noun/verb number > agreement, and likely any understanding of apostrophes. > > Years ago, I inherited part of a project from a coworker who was > leaving, to my relief. The phrasing I had at that time was, "couldn't > program his way out of a wet paper bag." I don't know what Paul's > *code* looks like, but his reasoning reminds me of that situation. > Sounds to me like you used his code anyway, because you probably didn't know what to do yourself. Since you prove yourself unable to understand the difference between a pointer-type and what a pointer points to if I was ever in the unfortunate position to inherit your code I would probably just bin it and rewrite it from scratch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 19:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Em0qp.31482$0j7.25663@newsfe20.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3769 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniqgvse.23ag.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-04-14, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >> news:slrniqed4c.1o3f.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > [snip] >>> What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is not relevant to >>> the >>> statement >>> >>> int *p = new int[4] >>> >>> because there are no pointers to arrays in the statement, only pointers >>> to >>> int. A relevant part of the C++ standards for that statement is >>> paragraph >>> 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) that I quoted (see above). >>> >> p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints, not only to one single int. > > No, p is a pointer to an int. If it were a pointer to an array of > 4 ints, then the byte address that the result of the expression > > p+1 > > points to would be the byte address that p points plus > 4*sizeof(int). However, the byte address of what that expression > points to is the byte address that p points to plus sizeof(int). > Do you understand the difference between a pointer-type and what a pointer points to? Apparently not , let me explain: p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints. p is a pointer-type , pointer to int. when dereferenced p retruns a single int , which is a single element of the array it points to. when incremented p increments sizeof(int), and will point specifically to the next sequential element in the array. If p returned 4*sizeof(int) when dereferenced it could not be indexed using the subscript operator, as arrays are in C++. >>> What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is relevant to >>> parts >>> of >>> a C++ program that use a pointer to an array, such as one declared by >>> >>> int (*p1i)[5] >>> >> No the C++ standard is relevant to all C++ arrays. The standard defines >> the >> above pointer type can point to a 2d array, and an int* can point to a 1d >> array. > > I did not state that the C++ standard was not relevant to all C++ > arrays. I have stated that what is in the C++ standard about > pointers to arrays is not relevant to a C++ statement where there > are no pointers to arrays. > > Exactly where (section and paragraph) does the C++ standard state > that a pointer to a 1d array can point to a 2d array, as opposed > to can point to a 1d element of a 2d array? > > If a pointer to a 1d array could point to a 2d array, the last > initialization in the declaration > > int a2i[3][5], (*p2i)[3][5] = &a2i, (*p1i)[5] = p2i; > > that tries to initialize a pointer to a 1d array with a pointer > to a 2d array would be allowed, but it isn't. > > Similarly, if a pointer to int could point to a 1d array of int, > the last initialization in the declaration > > int a1i[5], (*p1i)[5] = &a1i, *pi = p1i; > > would be allowed, but it isn't. > >> When people like Bjarne Stroustrup say that a char* can point to a single >> char or an array of chars, who is more likely to be correct him or >> someone >> like you who directly disagrees with this? > > Details are sometimes omitted from what is said about C++. Bjarne > Stroustrup went into details in "The C++ Programming Language". > According to that book (page 91 of the Special Edition): "The name > of an array can be used as a pointer to its initial element." > > Part of an example on the next page of the book is > > char v[] = "Annemarie"; > char* p = v; // implicit conversion of char[] to char* > > When Bjarne Stroustrup goes into the details, he says that the > name of an array is converted to a pointer to an element of the > array, not to a pointer to the array. In C++ pointers are typed; > "pointer to char" and "pointer to array of char" are different > types. So according to you this is incorrect: "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place which holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can point almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of chars, or nowhere " Im sorry but I agree with the above quotation , and if you disagree then I diasagree with you and I think it is more likely that you are incorrect than the source of this quotation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 12:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniqou48.1pof.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3781 |
On 2011-04-15, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:slrniqgvse.23ag.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> On 2011-04-14, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >>> news:slrniqed4c.1o3f.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> [snip] >>>> What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is not relevant to >>>> the >>>> statement >>>> >>>> int *p = new int[4] >>>> >>>> because there are no pointers to arrays in the statement, only pointers >>>> to >>>> int. A relevant part of the C++ standards for that statement is >>>> paragraph >>>> 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) that I quoted (see above). >>>> >>> p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints, not only to one single int. >> >> No, p is a pointer to an int. If it were a pointer to an array of >> 4 ints, then the byte address that the result of the expression >> >> p+1 >> >> points to would be the byte address that p points plus >> 4*sizeof(int). However, the byte address of what that expression >> points to is the byte address that p points to plus sizeof(int). >> > > Do you understand the difference between a pointer-type and what a pointer > points to? What you call pointer-type determines what a C++ pointer points to. Here is paragraph 1 of section 5.3 of the C++ standard: The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the object or function to which the expression points. If the type of the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T. [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1. ] I accept exactly what is in the C++ standard. Given the declaration int *p = new int[4]; p is a pointer to an int and the result of *p is an int. What you wrote, "p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints", is incorrect; the result of *p is not an array of 4 ints.. > Apparently not , let me explain: > > p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints. > p is a pointer-type , pointer to int. > when dereferenced p retruns a single int , which is a single element of the > array it points to. > when incremented p increments sizeof(int), and will point specifically to > the next sequential element in the array. > If p returned 4*sizeof(int) when dereferenced it could not be indexed using > the subscript operator, as arrays are in C++. The fact that the result of incrementing p is a pointer to the next int address indicates that p is a pointer to an int, not a pointer to an array of 4 ints. In the declaration int a2i[3][4], (*p1i)[4] = a2i; p1i is a pointer to an array of 4 ints. Incrementing it results in a pointer to the next array of 4 ints. The subscript operator can be applied to the result of dereferencing p1i, as the subscript operator can be applied to any array in C++. The result of the initialization expression a2i is given in paragraph 7 of section 8.3.4 of the C++ standard: A consistent rule is followed for multidimensional arrays. If E is an n-dimensional array of rank ixjx...xk, then E appearing in an expression is converted to a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional array with rank jx...xk. If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointed to (n - 1)-dimensional array, which itself is immediately converted into a pointer. I accept exactly what is in the standard. The 2-dimensional array a2i in the initialization expression is converted to a pointer to a 1-dimensional array. As a result of the initialzation, p1i, a pointer to a 1-dimensional array, points to that 1-dimensional array. [snip] > So according to you this is incorrect: > > "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place which > holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can point > almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of chars, or > nowhere " > > Im sorry but I agree with the above quotation , and if you disagree then I > diasagree with you and I think it is more likely that you are incorrect than > the source of this quotation. I don't disagree that a char* can point almost anywhere. However, no matter where it points, an operation on a char* treats what the char* points to as a char.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 21:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eg1rp.4730$9h6.2764@newsfe02.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3956 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniqou48.1pof.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >>>>> What is in the C++ standard about pointers to arrays is not relevant >>>>> to >>>>> the >>>>> statement >>>>> >>>>> int *p = new int[4] >>>>> >>>>> because there are no pointers to arrays in the statement, only >>>>> pointers >>>>> to >>>>> int. A relevant part of the C++ standards for that statement is >>>>> paragraph >>>>> 1 of section 5.3.4 (New) that I quoted (see above). >>>>> >>>> p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints, not only to one single int. >>> >>> No, p is a pointer to an int. If it were a pointer to an array of >>> 4 ints, then the byte address that the result of the expression >>> >>> p+1 >>> >>> points to would be the byte address that p points plus >>> 4*sizeof(int). However, the byte address of what that expression >>> points to is the byte address that p points to plus sizeof(int). >>> >> >> Do you understand the difference between a pointer-type and what a >> pointer >> points to? > > What you call pointer-type determines what a C++ pointer points > to. Here is paragraph 1 of section 5.3 of the C++ standard: > > The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to > which it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or > a pointer to a function type and the result is an lvalue > referring to the object or function to which the expression > points. If the type of the expression is pointer to T, the > type of the result is T. [Note: a pointer to an incomplete > type (other than cv void ) can be dereferenced. The lvalue thus > obtained can be used in limited ways (to initialize a reference, > for example); this lvalue must not be converted to an rvalue, > see 4.1. ] > > I accept exactly what is in the C++ standard. Given the declaration > > int *p = new int[4]; > > p is a pointer to an int and the result of *p is an int. What you > wrote, "p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints", is incorrect; the > result of *p is not an array of 4 ints.. > No p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints. When it is dereferenced it returns an int because the pointer-type is int*, which complies with this quotation from the standards on dereferencing. You cannot get a pointer that, when dereferenced, returns 4 ints. Or 40 ints or whatever size the array is. >> Apparently not , let me explain: >> >> p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints. >> p is a pointer-type , pointer to int. >> when dereferenced p retruns a single int , which is a single element of >> the >> array it points to. >> when incremented p increments sizeof(int), and will point specifically to >> the next sequential element in the array. >> If p returned 4*sizeof(int) when dereferenced it could not be indexed >> using >> the subscript operator, as arrays are in C++. > > The fact that the result of incrementing p is a pointer to the next > int address indicates that p is a pointer to an int, not a pointer > to an array of 4 ints. No this is incorrect a pointer of type int* can point to both a single int and an array of ints. > > In the declaration > > int a2i[3][4], (*p1i)[4] = a2i; > > p1i is a pointer to an array of 4 ints. But when its dereferenced in doesn't return 4 ints. It is not a pointer to an array(entity) of 4 ints, it is a pointer to array-type. When an array is converted to a pointer it is converted to a pointer-type of an (n-1) dimensionsal array. > Incrementing it results in > a pointer to the next array of 4 ints. The subscript operator can > be applied to the result of dereferencing p1i, as the subscript > operator can be applied to any array in C++. > > The result of the initialization expression a2i is given in > paragraph 7 of section 8.3.4 of the C++ standard: > > A consistent rule is followed for multidimensional arrays. If E > is an n-dimensional array of rank ixjx...xk, then E appearing in > an expression is converted to a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional > array with rank jx...xk. If the * operator, either explicitly or > implicitly as a result of subscripting, is applied to this pointer, > the result is the pointed to (n - 1)-dimensional array, which > itself is immediately converted into a pointer. The above clearly expalins how arrays are converted to pointers in C++. A 1dim array such as int arr[16], is converted to a pointer type int*. A 2dim array such as int arr[3][16] is converted to a pointer type int (*)[16]. > I accept exactly what is in the standard. The 2-dimensional array > a2i in the initialization expression is converted to a pointer to a > 1-dimensional array. As a result of the initialzation, p1i, a > pointer to a 1-dimensional array, points to that 1-dimensional array. > If a 2d array is converted to a pointer , the pointer points to a 2d array. The pointed to TYPE is a 1d array and you are obviously confusing this with with the pointed to entity. > [snip] > >> So according to you this is incorrect: >> >> "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place >> which >> holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can point >> almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of chars, or >> nowhere " >> >> Im sorry but I agree with the above quotation , and if you disagree then >> I >> diasagree with you and I think it is more likely that you are incorrect >> than >> the source of this quotation. > > I don't disagree that a char* can point almost anywhere. However, > no matter where it points, an operation on a char* treats what the > char* points to as a char. But you disagree that char* can point to an array? According to you *char returns only one char and not multiple chars therefore it is incorrect to say a char* can point to an array of chars. So you must disagree with the above. You must also disagree with the following: <quote ref=http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html> "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char." </quote> Now since you are in complete disagreement with highly respected authorities who were probably teaching C++ before you'd even heard of it. Do you not think that perhaps you're missing something important here? char* p= new char[16]; p[3] = '3'; The above treats the char pointer as an array, not as a single char.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web