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 19 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 Next page →
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 06:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4deb0828$0$18242$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #6211 |
"Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:knwGp.529$29.193@newsfe08.ams2...
>
> "hanukas" <jukka@liimatta.org> wrote in message
> news:13ba86a3-6c9b-4912-9c53-e94a9842e959@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>> int* p = new int[55];
>>> People seem to have different opinions about whether or not an array object
>>> exists here. Or to make it in linewith the current discussion consider this:
>>
>> Memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to the first
>> element. The type is "int*"
>>
>>
>>> int p2 = new int[1];
>>> What exaclty is the object created by this expression?
>>
>> That's a syntax error, but I assume you meant "int *p2 = new int[1];",
>> in which case memory is allocated and returned; you get a pointer to
>> the first (and in this case only) element. The type is "int*"
>>
>>
>>> I have said that I think it can be considered as either
>>> a) an array of size one
>>> b) Just one integer object.
>>
>> Array of size one has only one object, just like array of size two has
>> two objects and so on - amazing, yes. But operator new [] does not
>> create array, it does dynamic memory allocation. The allocated memory
>> is returned to you as pointer to the first element.
>>
>>
>>> Just as the 55 elements p points to above can be considered:
>>> a) an arrayt of size 55
>>
>> No, you cannot consider it as an array of size 55, as it is not an
>> array.
>
> I disagree , an array of integer objects are created in memory.
>
>>
>>
>>> b) int objects, in sequence
>>
>> Better. ;)
>>
>>
>>> There is no right or wrong way to view an array , it can bew seen both ways.
>>
>> When you view an array, yes, but your examples are dynamic memory
>> allocation. ;)
>>
> So obviously you are of the opinion that an array type object doesn't exist in
> the example of a "dynamic array".
really type array, and really type pointers for array,
exist only for structs
> Other people here , who seem just as confident as you in their correctness,
> think that an array object exists. So is it a case of one view is wrong and
> the other is right? Or is it a case, as I have said, that both views are
> correct?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct array20_{
int a[20];
}array20;
int main(void)
{array20 arr[2], *p;
int *pi;
pi=(int*)arr; pi[0]=11111; pi[20]=33333;
p=arr; ++p;
printf("the result is==%d\n", p->a[0]);
return 0;
}
-------------------
>
the result is==33333
---------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 07:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4deb1a0a$0$18249$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #6227 |
"io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4deb0828$0$18242$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
> really type array, and really type pointers for array,
> exist only for structs
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> typedef struct array20_{
> int a[20];
> }array20;
>
>
> int main(void)
> {array20 arr[2], *p;
> int *pi;
> pi=(int*)arr; pi[0]=11111; pi[20]=33333;
> p=arr; ++p;
> printf("the result is==%d\n", p->a[0]);
>
> return 0;
> }
> -------------------
>>
> the result is==33333
> ---------------------
i would like to say:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#define u32 uint32_t
typedef struct array20_{
u32 a[20];
}array20;
int main(void)
{array20 arr[2], *p;
u32 *pi;
pi=(u32*)arr; pi[0]=11111; pi[20]=33333;
p=arr; ++p;
printf("the result is==%u\n", *(u32*)p);
return 0;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 11:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <isa803$oci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #6114 |
* Pete Becker, on 03.06.2011 04:06: > > Which is what I said above: an int* points to an int. It does not point to an > array of int objects, because an array of int objects is not an int. It's just a question of terminology, common sense & effective communication. If you want I can cite you umpteen examples from the standard that employ far worse terminological shortcuts. Intelligent folks don't write to you requiring that you do editorial fixes of those places, because to anyone with half a mind it's obvious what's meant. --- So, why not leave Paul's favorite TROLLING question alone? It was quiet for a while here. Then Ian Collins and you started responding to Paul again. Argh. Please keep in mind: many of us have much invested in using particular software such as Thunderbird, and can't easily switch to newsreaders with general scoring. Cheers, & exasperated, - Alf -- blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 21:08 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <94rmktFbjiU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #6126 |
On 06/ 3/11 09:14 PM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote: > > So, why not leave Paul's favorite TROLLING question alone? It was quiet for a > while here. Then Ian Collins and you started responding to Paul again. Argh. Alf, use the 'k' key in thunderbird and all will be quiet once again :) -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 14:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uh5Gp.33876$UY3.19926@newsfe20.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6126 |
"Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message news:isa803$oci$1@dont-email.me... >* Pete Becker, on 03.06.2011 04:06: >> >> Which is what I said above: an int* points to an int. It does not point >> to an >> array of int objects, because an array of int objects is not an int. > > It's just a question of terminology, common sense & effective > communication. > > If you want I can cite you umpteen examples from the standard that employ > far worse terminological shortcuts. > > Intelligent folks don't write to you requiring that you do editorial fixes > of those places, because to anyone with half a mind it's obvious what's > meant. > This is nonsense, a document that's presented as an ISO standard is in place to define the language. Its meaning should not be decided by the interpretation of the reader. If there are techincal innacuraicies in a techincal standard they must be corrected or the document doesn't define the language correctly. Also when we say a pointer type int* can point to an int, an array of integers or nothing. It obvious what is meant to intelligent folks. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a1d4b8d-ce80-45fe-8170-c5bb3f5f6f6c@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6137 |
On Jun 3, 4:25 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+use...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:isa803$oci$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >* Pete Becker, on 03.06.2011 04:06:
>
> >> Which is what I said above: an int* points to an int. It does not point
> >> to an
> >> array of int objects, because an array of int objects is not an int.
>
> > It's just a question of terminology, common sense & effective
> > communication.
>
> > If you want I can cite you umpteen examples from the standard that employ
> > far worse terminological shortcuts.
>
> > Intelligent folks don't write to you requiring that you do editorial fixes
> > of those places, because to anyone with half a mind it's obvious what's
> > meant.
>
> This is nonsense, a document that's presented as an ISO standard is in place
> to define the language.
> Its meaning should not be decided by the interpretation of the reader.
> If there are techincal innacuraicies in a techincal standard they must be
> corrected or the document doesn't define the language correctly.
>
> Also when we say a pointer type int* can point to an int, an array of
> integers or nothing. It obvious what is meant to intelligent folks. :)
class paul
{
public:
int value;
int data[10];
std::string message;
};
paul paulArray[10];
int* p = &paulArray[0].value;
So now p points to array of paul, huh? How about adding that into the C
++ standard, too? NO! The p points to int. End of story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 19:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e86a2a6-f520-4e95-8e17-1586e0ba701c@v11g2000prk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6126 |
On Jun 3, 2:14 am, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * Pete Becker, on 03.06.2011 04:06:
>
>
>
> > Which is what I said above: an int* points to an int. It does not point to an
> > array of int objects, because an array of int objects is not an int.
>
> It's just a question of terminology, common sense & effective communication.
>
> If you want I can cite you umpteen examples from the standard that employ far
> worse terminological shortcuts.
>
> Intelligent folks don't write to you requiring that you do editorial fixes of
> those places, because to anyone with half a mind it's obvious what's meant.
>
> ---
>
> So, why not leave Paul's favorite TROLLING question alone? It was quiet for a
> while here. Then Ian Collins and you started responding to Paul again. Argh.
>
> Please keep in mind: many of us have much invested in using particular software
> such as Thunderbird, and can't easily switch to newsreaders with general scoring.
>
> Cheers, & exasperated,
Heh. I'm basically done with Paul, short of a one liner reply if he
makes a new thread on this subject (or exactly where member functions
"live"). As I've said, my recent posting has been because I finally
saw what he's arguing, and that gave me a little hope.
I'm personally a little annoyed that the other people arguing against
him are almost arguing non-sequiturs, and not arguing what really
matters, despite my explanations thereof. You need to convince Paul
that the object of array type is the same thing as the array object is
the same thing as the array type object, and the elements of the array
are sub-objects of the array object and are contained within the
memory of the array object. You also need to convince Paul that a
reasonable person will interpret "X is a pointer to int" as a claim
about the static type of X, not as a claim about the runtime value of
X. And everyone needs to drop this annoying argument that "int* x;"
cannot point to an array and can only point at int objects (contrast
"is a pointer to int") - that's simply not how most people use the
terminology. Ex:
class A {};
class B : public A {};
B b;
A* a = &b;
Most people would not bat an eye at saying "a points at b", even
though by this absurd pedantic argument in this thread against Paul,
one would conclude that "a does not point at b; a only points at the
sub-object of type A contained in b".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 13:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <O_edneoexoiv5nbQnZ2dnUVZ7vqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #6225 |
On 05/06/2011 03:52, Joshua Maurice wrote:
>
> Heh. I'm basically done with Paul, short of a one liner reply if he
> makes a new thread on this subject (or exactly where member functions
> "live"). As I've said, my recent posting has been because I finally
> saw what he's arguing, and that gave me a little hope.
>
> I'm personally a little annoyed that the other people arguing against
> him are almost arguing non-sequiturs, and not arguing what really
> matters, despite my explanations thereof. You need to convince Paul
> that the object of array type is the same thing as the array object is
> the same thing as the array type object, and the elements of the array
> are sub-objects of the array object and are contained within the
> memory of the array object. You also need to convince Paul that a
> reasonable person will interpret "X is a pointer to int" as a claim
> about the static type of X, not as a claim about the runtime value of
> X. And everyone needs to drop this annoying argument that "int* x;"
> cannot point to an array and can only point at int objects (contrast
> "is a pointer to int") - that's simply not how most people use the
> terminology. Ex:
> class A {};
> class B : public A {};
> B b;
> A* a =&b;
> Most people would not bat an eye at saying "a points at b", even
> though by this absurd pedantic argument in this thread against Paul,
> one would conclude that "a does not point at b; a only points at the
> sub-object of type A contained in b".
The difference here is that 'a' can point to a 'b' (as you have shown)
but if the type of 'a' was 'int*' and the type of 'b' was 'int[42]' then
'a' can not point to 'b':
int b[42];
int* a = &b; // will not compile
HTH.
/Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 14:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gSLGp.934$Rw7.267@newsfe28.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6239 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O_edneoexoiv5nbQnZ2dnUVZ7vqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 05/06/2011 03:52, Joshua Maurice wrote:
>>
>> Heh. I'm basically done with Paul, short of a one liner reply if he
>> makes a new thread on this subject (or exactly where member functions
>> "live"). As I've said, my recent posting has been because I finally
>> saw what he's arguing, and that gave me a little hope.
>>
>> I'm personally a little annoyed that the other people arguing against
>> him are almost arguing non-sequiturs, and not arguing what really
>> matters, despite my explanations thereof. You need to convince Paul
>> that the object of array type is the same thing as the array object is
>> the same thing as the array type object, and the elements of the array
>> are sub-objects of the array object and are contained within the
>> memory of the array object. You also need to convince Paul that a
>> reasonable person will interpret "X is a pointer to int" as a claim
>> about the static type of X, not as a claim about the runtime value of
>> X. And everyone needs to drop this annoying argument that "int* x;"
>> cannot point to an array and can only point at int objects (contrast
>> "is a pointer to int") - that's simply not how most people use the
>> terminology. Ex:
>> class A {};
>> class B : public A {};
>> B b;
>> A* a =&b;
>> Most people would not bat an eye at saying "a points at b", even
>> though by this absurd pedantic argument in this thread against Paul,
>> one would conclude that "a does not point at b; a only points at the
>> sub-object of type A contained in b".
>
> The difference here is that 'a' can point to a 'b' (as you have shown)
Applying your argument to this would be equivalent to saying that because a
is of type A* it can point to ONLY one single A object and nothing more.
> but if the type of 'a' was 'int*' and the type of 'b' was 'int[42]' then
> 'a' can not point to 'b':
But the type of 'a' is not int*, and the tpye of 'b' is not int[42].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas J. Gritzan" <phygon_antispam@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 18:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <isg9de$geu$1@newsreader5.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #6239 |
Am 05.06.2011 14:48, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
> On 05/06/2011 03:52, Joshua Maurice wrote:
>>
>> Heh. I'm basically done with Paul, short of a one liner reply if he
>> makes a new thread on this subject (or exactly where member functions
>> "live"). As I've said, my recent posting has been because I finally
>> saw what he's arguing, and that gave me a little hope.
>>
>> I'm personally a little annoyed that the other people arguing against
>> him are almost arguing non-sequiturs, and not arguing what really
>> matters, despite my explanations thereof. You need to convince Paul
>> that the object of array type is the same thing as the array object is
>> the same thing as the array type object, and the elements of the array
>> are sub-objects of the array object and are contained within the
>> memory of the array object. You also need to convince Paul that a
>> reasonable person will interpret "X is a pointer to int" as a claim
>> about the static type of X, not as a claim about the runtime value of
>> X. And everyone needs to drop this annoying argument that "int* x;"
>> cannot point to an array and can only point at int objects (contrast
>> "is a pointer to int") - that's simply not how most people use the
>> terminology. Ex:
>> class A {};
>> class B : public A {};
>> B b;
>> A* a =&b;
>> Most people would not bat an eye at saying "a points at b", even
>> though by this absurd pedantic argument in this thread against Paul,
>> one would conclude that "a does not point at b; a only points at the
>> sub-object of type A contained in b".
>
> The difference here is that 'a' can point to a 'b' (as you have shown)
> but if the type of 'a' was 'int*' and the type of 'b' was 'int[42]' then
> 'a' can not point to 'b':
>
> int b[42];
> int* a = &b; // will not compile
More important is that an A* can point to a B, but it cannot point to an
array of B without problems:
B b_arr[100];
A* a = b_arr;
a points to a *single* B object (the first of the array), but it does
not point to an array of Bs.
--
Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 19:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <DQPGp.922$w86.439@newsfe22.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6243 |
"Thomas J. Gritzan" <phygon_antispam@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:isg9de$geu$1@newsreader5.netcologne.de...
> Am 05.06.2011 14:48, schrieb Leigh Johnston:
>> On 05/06/2011 03:52, Joshua Maurice wrote:
>>>
>>> Heh. I'm basically done with Paul, short of a one liner reply if he
>>> makes a new thread on this subject (or exactly where member functions
>>> "live"). As I've said, my recent posting has been because I finally
>>> saw what he's arguing, and that gave me a little hope.
>>>
>>> I'm personally a little annoyed that the other people arguing against
>>> him are almost arguing non-sequiturs, and not arguing what really
>>> matters, despite my explanations thereof. You need to convince Paul
>>> that the object of array type is the same thing as the array object is
>>> the same thing as the array type object, and the elements of the array
>>> are sub-objects of the array object and are contained within the
>>> memory of the array object. You also need to convince Paul that a
>>> reasonable person will interpret "X is a pointer to int" as a claim
>>> about the static type of X, not as a claim about the runtime value of
>>> X. And everyone needs to drop this annoying argument that "int* x;"
>>> cannot point to an array and can only point at int objects (contrast
>>> "is a pointer to int") - that's simply not how most people use the
>>> terminology. Ex:
>>> class A {};
>>> class B : public A {};
>>> B b;
>>> A* a =&b;
>>> Most people would not bat an eye at saying "a points at b", even
>>> though by this absurd pedantic argument in this thread against Paul,
>>> one would conclude that "a does not point at b; a only points at the
>>> sub-object of type A contained in b".
>>
>> The difference here is that 'a' can point to a 'b' (as you have shown)
>> but if the type of 'a' was 'int*' and the type of 'b' was 'int[42]' then
>> 'a' can not point to 'b':
>>
>> int b[42];
>> int* a = &b; // will not compile
>
> More important is that an A* can point to a B, but it cannot point to an
> array of B without problems:
>
> B b_arr[100];
> A* a = b_arr;
>
> a points to a *single* B object (the first of the array), but it does not
> point to an array of Bs.
>
A *single* object, is not also (the first of an array), as you put it.
An array is a sequence of objects, it cannot also be a single object except
for silly cases where it's size one.
If your intention is to use this pointer as a pointer to a single element
you'd be better using the syntax:
A* a = &b_arr[n];
The expression :
A* a = b_arr;
Could be interpreted as an array being assigned to a pointer of incompatable
type. If you want to use the pointer as a pointer to the array then use the
correct type :
B* b = b_arr;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 14:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sPLGp.68$Zv3.9@newsfe26.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6225 |
"Joshua Maurice" <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e86a2a6-f520-4e95-8e17-1586e0ba701c@v11g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 2:14 am, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * Pete Becker, on 03.06.2011 04:06:
>
>
>
> > Which is what I said above: an int* points to an int. It does not point
> > to an
> > array of int objects, because an array of int objects is not an int.
>
> It's just a question of terminology, common sense & effective
> communication.
>
> If you want I can cite you umpteen examples from the standard that employ
> far
> worse terminological shortcuts.
>
> Intelligent folks don't write to you requiring that you do editorial fixes
> of
> those places, because to anyone with half a mind it's obvious what's
> meant.
>
> ---
>
> So, why not leave Paul's favorite TROLLING question alone? It was quiet
> for a
> while here. Then Ian Collins and you started responding to Paul again.
> Argh.
>
> Please keep in mind: many of us have much invested in using particular
> software
> such as Thunderbird, and can't easily switch to newsreaders with general
> scoring.
>
> Cheers, & exasperated,
--Heh. I'm basically done with Paul, short of a one liner reply if he
--makes a new thread on this subject (or exactly where member functions
--"live"). As I've said, my recent posting has been because I finally
--saw what he's arguing, and that gave me a little hope.
--I'm personally a little annoyed that the other people arguing against
--him are almost arguing non-sequiturs, and not arguing what really
--matters, despite my explanations thereof. You need to convince Paul
--that the object of array type is the same thing as the array object is
--the same thing as the array type object, and the elements of the array
--are sub-objects of the array object and are contained within the
--memory of the array object. You also need to convince Paul that a
--reasonable person will interpret "X is a pointer to int" as a claim
--about the static type of X, not as a claim about the runtime value of
--X.
Using the term "a pointer to X" to refer to the type of the pointer is loose
use of english language and is shorthand for saying "is a pointer of type
ptr-to-X".
The term "is a pointer to" is more commonly used as an indiciation of what
is pointed to , not the type of the pointer.
-- And everyone needs to drop this annoying argument that "int* x;"
--cannot point to an array and can only point at int objects (contrast
--"is a pointer to int") - that's simply not how most people use the
--terminology. Ex:
-- class A {};
-- class B : public A {};
-- B b;
-- A* a = &b;
--Most people would not bat an eye at saying "a points at b", even
--though by this absurd pedantic argument in this thread against Paul,
--one would conclude that "a does not point at b; a only points at the
--sub-object of type A contained in b".
Well you are beginning to see sense.
But the old polymorphic argument will not convince the die hards, I've
already tried that one :)
When we access an array the pointer expression can be shown as:
*(p + i);
In this expression.. 'p' is a pointer to the beginning of the array and 'i'
is an offset that indexes the individual elements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 12:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniui6tu.k80.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #6092 |
On 2011-06-02, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of type > int* cannot point to an array of integer objects. A pointer of type int* cannot point to an array of int because converting a pointer to array of T to a pointer to T is not one of the standard conversions enumerated in section 4 (Standard conversions) of the C++ standard. A pointer of type int* can point to an element in an array of int. Pointing to an array is not the same as pointing to an element in the array; an array and an element in it do not have the same type.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 19:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <M0aGp.2273$r52.2150@newsfe02.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6148 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:slrniui6tu.k80.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> On 2011-06-02, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of
>> type
>> int* cannot point to an array of integer objects.
>
> A pointer of type int* cannot point to an array of int because
> converting a pointer to array of T to a pointer to T is not one of
> the standard conversions enumerated in section 4 (Standard
> conversions) of the C++ standard.
>
> A pointer of type int* can point to an element in an array of int.
> Pointing to an array is not the same as pointing to an element in
> the array; an array and an element in it do not have the same type.
>
Yes pointing to an object of array type , is not the same as pointing to an
array of objects of integer type.
You are defining the term "pointing to an array" to mean poiting to an
object of array type only. It is quite acceptable to conceive an array as a
sequence of integer objects rather than one single array type object.
This is why the types are different.
It's simply terminology, you see at as one single object, whereas I can see
it as a single object but also as a sequence of objects.
With the following code..
int arr[7];
int* p1 = arr;
int (*p2)[7] = &arr;
Both the pointers point-to the first element in the array, and both pointers
also point-to the array of integer objects. They are just different types of
pointers.
They both point to exactly the same location.
A example of both pointers accessing...;
a) A single object:
*p1;
**p2;
b) An array of obects:
*p2;
for(int i=0; i<7 ; ++i){ p1[i];}
Note that in (b) p1 does not access the integer objects it just accesses the
array type object. p2 does access the array of integer objects but it does
not access the array type object.
They only differ, because of their pointer types, in the way they access the
array. They both point to exactly the same array but in this different way.
Consider a stack frame pointer, pointing to the stack. It doesn't actually
point the whole stack at the same time but nonetheless its still considered
to be pointing to the stack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 11:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniukoa8.1fj5.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #6152 |
On 2011-06-03, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrniui6tu.k80.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> On 2011-06-02, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of
>>> type
>>> int* cannot point to an array of integer objects.
>>
>> A pointer of type int* cannot point to an array of int because
>> converting a pointer to array of T to a pointer to T is not one of
>> the standard conversions enumerated in section 4 (Standard
>> conversions) of the C++ standard.
>>
>> A pointer of type int* can point to an element in an array of int.
>> Pointing to an array is not the same as pointing to an element in
>> the array; an array and an element in it do not have the same type.
>>
>
> Yes pointing to an object of array type , is not the same as pointing to an
> array of objects of integer type.
No, pointing to an array of objects of integer type, that is,
pointing to a C++ array of int, is pointing to an object of array
type. An array of int is an array. An object of type array of int
is an object of array type.
Pointing to an array type is not the same as pointing to an element
type of the array.
> You are defining the term "pointing to an array" to mean poiting to an
> object of array type only. It is quite acceptable to conceive an array as a
> sequence of integer objects rather than one single array type object.
> This is why the types are different.
> It's simply terminology, you see at as one single object, whereas I can see
> it as a single object but also as a sequence of objects.
The C++ sees it as: "An object of array type contains a
contiguously allocated nonempty set of N sub-objects of type T."
Pointing to an array is pointing to an object of array type.
Pointing to a sub-object in an array is pointing to something other
than an object of the array type of the array that the sub-object is
in.
> With the following code..
> int arr[7];
> int* p1 = arr;
> int (*p2)[7] = &arr;
>
> Both the pointers point-to the first element in the array, and both pointers
> also point-to the array of integer objects. They are just different types of
> pointers.
> They both point to exactly the same location.
Both pointers do not point to the first element of the array. p1
points to the first element of the array; p2 points to the array.
An array is not the same as its first element.
> A example of both pointers accessing...;
> a) A single object:
> *p1;
> **p2;
> b) An array of obects:
> *p2;
> for(int i=0; i<7 ; ++i){ p1[i];}
>
> Note that in (b) p1 does not access the integer objects it just accesses the
> array type object. p2 does access the array of integer objects but it does
> not access the array type object.
> They only differ, because of their pointer types, in the way they access the
> array. They both point to exactly the same array but in this different way.
p1 in (b) does not access an array type object. p1 is a pointer to
int. The expression p1[i] is equivalent to *(p1+i). According to
the C++ standard (start of paragraph 5 of 5.7 (Additive operators)):
When an expression that has integral type is added to or subtracted
from a pointer, the result has the type of the pointer operand. If
the pointer operand points to an element of an array object, and
the array is large enough, the result points to an element offset
from the original element such that the difference of the
subscripts of the resulting and original array elements equals the
integral expression.
The result of (p1+i) is a pointer to int that points to the i-th
element from the array element that p1 points to. p1 points to an
array element; it does not point to the array that the element is in.
Unlike p1, p2 is a pointer to an array type object. p2 points to an
array. p1 does not point to an array; it points to the first
element of the array that p2 points to.
> Consider a stack frame pointer, pointing to the stack. It doesn't actually
> point the whole stack at the same time but nonetheless its still considered
> to be pointing to the stack.
There is a significant difference between a stack frame pointer and a
C++ pointer: a C++ pointer is typed. In C++, the result of
dereferencing a pointer to T, where T is a type, is a T.
The result of using a stack frame pointer as an address operand
depends on what the operator does. Different operators move 1, 2, 4,
8, or some other number of bytes to or from storage starting at the
address given by the address operand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-04 18:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mjuGp.598$oX2.89@newsfe06.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6202 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:slrniukoa8.1fj5.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> On 2011-06-03, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrniui6tu.k80.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>>> On 2011-06-02, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> I am simply trying to get to the bottom of why you think a pointer of
>>>> type
>>>> int* cannot point to an array of integer objects.
>>>
>>> A pointer of type int* cannot point to an array of int because
>>> converting a pointer to array of T to a pointer to T is not one of
>>> the standard conversions enumerated in section 4 (Standard
>>> conversions) of the C++ standard.
>>>
>>> A pointer of type int* can point to an element in an array of int.
>>> Pointing to an array is not the same as pointing to an element in
>>> the array; an array and an element in it do not have the same type.
>>>
>>
>> Yes pointing to an object of array type , is not the same as pointing to
>> an
>> array of objects of integer type.
>
> No, pointing to an array of objects of integer type, that is,
> pointing to a C++ array of int, is pointing to an object of array
> type. An array of int is an array. An object of type array of int
> is an object of array type.
>
> Pointing to an array type is not the same as pointing to an element
> type of the array.
>
>> You are defining the term "pointing to an array" to mean poiting to an
>> object of array type only. It is quite acceptable to conceive an array as
>> a
>> sequence of integer objects rather than one single array type object.
>> This is why the types are different.
>> It's simply terminology, you see at as one single object, whereas I can
>> see
>> it as a single object but also as a sequence of objects.
>
> The C++ sees it as: "An object of array type contains a
> contiguously allocated nonempty set of N sub-objects of type T."
> Pointing to an array is pointing to an object of array type.
> Pointing to a sub-object in an array is pointing to something other
> than an object of the array type of the array that the sub-object is
> in.
>
You have quoted some text from that seems to describe an object of array
type.
As I said , and you have proved me correct, you can only see an array as "a
single array type object". You cannot see it at as array of integer
objects( or whatever type it is).
>> With the following code..
>> int arr[7];
>> int* p1 = arr;
>> int (*p2)[7] = &arr;
>>
>> Both the pointers point-to the first element in the array, and both
>> pointers
>> also point-to the array of integer objects. They are just different types
>> of
>> pointers.
>> They both point to exactly the same location.
>
> Both pointers do not point to the first element of the array. p1
> points to the first element of the array; p2 points to the array.
> An array is not the same as its first element.
The address of an array is the same as the address of the first element, and
a pointer is this address.
They both point to exactly the same place and they both point to exactly the
same array. Whether you view it as pointing to an array of pointing to the
first element is just a POV.
>
>> A example of both pointers accessing...;
>> a) A single object:
>> *p1;
>> **p2;
>> b) An array of obects:
>> *p2;
>> for(int i=0; i<7 ; ++i){ p1[i];}
>>
>> Note that in (b) p1 does not access the integer objects it just accesses
>> the
>> array type object. p2 does access the array of integer objects but it
>> does
>> not access the array type object.
>> They only differ, because of their pointer types, in the way they access
>> the
>> array. They both point to exactly the same array but in this different
>> way.
>
> p1 in (b) does not access an array type object. p1 is a pointer to
> int. The expression p1[i] is equivalent to *(p1+i). According to
> the C++ standard (start of paragraph 5 of 5.7 (Additive operators)):
No p1 is not a pointer to integer(singular) , it is a pointer to
integers(plural).
Correct p1 doesn't access the array-type object , but it accesses the array
of integer objects.
>
> When an expression that has integral type is added to or subtracted
> from a pointer, the result has the type of the pointer operand. If
> the pointer operand points to an element of an array object, and
> the array is large enough, the result points to an element offset
> from the original element such that the difference of the
> subscripts of the resulting and original array elements equals the
> integral expression.
>
> The result of (p1+i) is a pointer to int that points to the i-th
> element from the array element that p1 points to. p1 points to an
> array element; it does not point to the array that the element is in.
Look at the expression :
p1 + i;
It's a pointer plus offset(or index).
p1 is pointer to the beginning of the array
i is an offest that indexes the array.
It cannot be any clearer that p1 points to the array.
>
> Unlike p1, p2 is a pointer to an array type object. p2 points to an
> array. p1 does not point to an array; it points to the first
> element of the array that p2 points to.
p1 and p2 point to exactly the same place, and the same array.
>
>> Consider a stack frame pointer, pointing to the stack. It doesn't
>> actually
>> point the whole stack at the same time but nonetheless its still
>> considered
>> to be pointing to the stack.
>
> There is a significant difference between a stack frame pointer and a
> C++ pointer: a C++ pointer is typed. In C++, the result of
> dereferencing a pointer to T, where T is a type, is a T.
No, dereferencing a pointer of type pointer-to-T, will result in a T if it
points to a valid T object.
The pointer type declares a pointer object that can address an object of the
decalred type , for example:
int *p = 0;
p = &ix; /*assume x is valid int*/
p = new int[64];
Here the pointer p is declared to be a pointer of type ptr-to-int, it means
this pointer must be capable of pointing to a valid int object., It has
nothing to do with what it points to.
The above the pointer is shown pointing to nothing, an integer and an array
of integers.
Now consider the following code:
int *p;
What does this point to? Uninitialised memory that could contain anything.
The pointer type only tells us that the declared pointer object is capable
of pointing to an integer, it does not define what is pointed to, as you
have tried to imply.
>
> The result of using a stack frame pointer as an address operand
> depends on what the operator does. Different operators move 1, 2, 4,
> 8, or some other number of bytes to or from storage starting at the
> address given by the address operand.
What you seem to be talking about here is what I know as the PTR keyword in
assembly, it may change in different assemblers.
I don't really see what this has to do with the fundamental concept that a
SFP "points to" a stack frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 14:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniuqah1.16ra.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #6208 |
On 2011-06-04, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrniukoa8.1fj5.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> On 2011-06-03, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> The C++ sees it as: "An object of array type contains a
>> contiguously allocated nonempty set of N sub-objects of type T."
>> Pointing to an array is pointing to an object of array type.
>> Pointing to a sub-object in an array is pointing to something other
>> than an object of the array type of the array that the sub-object is
>> in.
>>
> You have quoted some text from that seems to describe an object of array
> type.
> As I said , and you have proved me correct, you can only see an array as "a
> single array type object". You cannot see it at as array of integer
> objects( or whatever type it is).
I have quoted the C++ standard. Seeing it as the C++ standard does
is the proper way to see it when discussing C++, such as in the
comp.lang.c++ newsgroup. Seeing it another way is seeing it in a
way different from the C++ standard.
>>> With the following code..
>>> int arr[7];
>>> int* p1 = arr;
>>> int (*p2)[7] = &arr;
>>>
>>> Both the pointers point-to the first element in the array, and both
>>> pointers
>>> also point-to the array of integer objects. They are just different types
>>> of
>>> pointers.
>>> They both point to exactly the same location.
>>
>> Both pointers do not point to the first element of the array. p1
>> points to the first element of the array; p2 points to the array.
>> An array is not the same as its first element.
> The address of an array is the same as the address of the first element, and
> a pointer is this address.
The first element of an array is at the same memory location as the
array. The value of a C++ pointer is not only a memory location; it
is a typed memory location. Ignoring their types, the p1 and p2 have
the same value; however because p1 and p2 have different types, they
do not point to the same entity. p1 points to the first element of
the array, not to the array; p2 points to the array.
> They both point to exactly the same place and they both point to exactly the
> same array. Whether you view it as pointing to an array of pointing to the
> first element is just a POV.
They do not both point to exactly the same array. One points to an
array; the other may point to an element of that array. The point of
view of the C++ standard is that a
int (*)[]
points to an array of int while a
int *
points to an int, the int it points to may be an element in an array
of int.
>>> A example of both pointers accessing...;
>>> a) A single object:
>>> *p1;
>>> **p2;
>>> b) An array of obects:
>>> *p2;
>>> for(int i=0; i<7 ; ++i){ p1[i];}
>>>
>>> Note that in (b) p1 does not access the integer objects it just accesses
>>> the
>>> array type object. p2 does access the array of integer objects but it
>>> does
>>> not access the array type object.
>>> They only differ, because of their pointer types, in the way they access
>>> the
>>> array. They both point to exactly the same array but in this different
>>> way.
>>
>> p1 in (b) does not access an array type object. p1 is a pointer to
>> int. The expression p1[i] is equivalent to *(p1+i). According to
>> the C++ standard (start of paragraph 5 of 5.7 (Additive operators)):
>
> No p1 is not a pointer to integer(singular) , it is a pointer to
> integers(plural).
> Correct p1 doesn't access the array-type object , but it accesses the array
> of integer objects.
The declarations were
int arr[7];
int* p1 = arr;
int (*p2)[7] = &arr;
p1 is a pointer to an integer. What C++ has available as a pointer to
multiple integers is a pointer to an array of integers, such as p2.
p1 is a pointer to an integer, accessing what p1 points to access
that integer.
>> When an expression that has integral type is added to or subtracted
>> from a pointer, the result has the type of the pointer operand. If
>> the pointer operand points to an element of an array object, and
>> the array is large enough, the result points to an element offset
>> from the original element such that the difference of the
>> subscripts of the resulting and original array elements equals the
>> integral expression.
>>
>> The result of (p1+i) is a pointer to int that points to the i-th
>> element from the array element that p1 points to. p1 points to an
>> array element; it does not point to the array that the element is in.
>
> Look at the expression :
> p1 + i;
>
> It's a pointer plus offset(or index).
> p1 is pointer to the beginning of the array
> i is an offest that indexes the array.
>
> It cannot be any clearer that p1 points to the array.
An element in an array has a different type than the array the
element is in. The type of p1 is int*. When p1 points to an element
of an array of int, it is pointing to an an int, not to an array.
The type of a pointer to an array of int is of the form int(*)[].
The C++ standard is clear about this in the following example from
8.1 (Types).
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 distinction between a pointer to an array and a pointer to an
element of that array is important for multidimensional arrays as
arrays of arrays in C++. The declaration
int x[3][5];
declares an array of 3 array of 5 int. The expression x[i][j] is
equivalent to *(*(x+i)+j). When that expression is evaluated
- x is an array of 3 array of 5 int
- array-to-pointer conversion results in a pointer to the first array
of 5 int in x
- adding i results in a pointer to the i-th array of 5 int in x
- dereferencing that results in the i-th array of 5 int in x
- array-to-pointer conversion results in a pointer to the first int in
the i-th array of 5 int in x
- adding j results in a pointer to the j-th int in the i-th array of
5 int in x
- dereferencing that result in the j-th int in the i-th array of 5 int
in x
Multidimensional arrays in C++ depend on the distinction between a
pointer to an array and a pointer to an element of that array. Not
understanding this distinction may lead to confusion.
>> Unlike p1, p2 is a pointer to an array type object. p2 points to an
>> array. p1 does not point to an array; it points to the first
>> element of the array that p2 points to.
>
> p1 and p2 point to exactly the same place, and the same array.
p1 and p2 have different types. p1 points to an int, not to an
array. p2 points to an array of 7 int.
>>> Consider a stack frame pointer, pointing to the stack. It doesn't
>>> actually
>>> point the whole stack at the same time but nonetheless its still
>>> considered
>>> to be pointing to the stack.
>>
>> There is a significant difference between a stack frame pointer and a
>> C++ pointer: a C++ pointer is typed. In C++, the result of
>> dereferencing a pointer to T, where T is a type, is a T.
>
> No, dereferencing a pointer of type pointer-to-T, will result in a T if it
> points to a valid T object.
> The pointer type declares a pointer object that can address an object of the
> decalred type , for example:
> int *p = 0;
> p = &ix; /*assume x is valid int*/
> p = new int[64];
What I have written is about what a C++ compiler does, along the
lines of what the C++ standard does in the folliwng sentence about
the unary * operator: "If the type of the expression is pointer to T,
the type of the result is T." These post are long enough without
adding possible undefined behaviors when the program runs due to the
value of a pointer to a non-polymorphic type.
> Here the pointer p is declared to be a pointer of type ptr-to-int, it means
> this pointer must be capable of pointing to a valid int object., It has
> nothing to do with what it points to.
> The above the pointer is shown pointing to nothing, an integer and an array
> of integers.
What is shown is p having the null pointer value, pointing to an
integer, and pointing to the first integer in an array of integers
(the result of the expression (new int[64]) is a pointer to int,
not a pointer to array of int).
> Now consider the following code:
> int *p;
> What does this point to? Uninitialised memory that could contain anything.
> The pointer type only tells us that the declared pointer object is capable
> of pointing to an integer, it does not define what is pointed to, as you
> have tried to imply.
It is undefined what p points to. I have used shorter phrases, such
as "is a T", rather than a longer ones, such as "is of type T". You
are misreading "is a T" as "is an object of type T that exists when
the program runs".
>> The result of using a stack frame pointer as an address operand
>> depends on what the operator does. Different operators move 1, 2, 4,
>> 8, or some other number of bytes to or from storage starting at the
>> address given by the address operand.
>
> What you seem to be talking about here is what I know as the PTR keyword in
> assembly, it may change in different assemblers.
> I don't really see what this has to do with the fundamental concept that a
> SFP "points to" a stack frame.
In that case, you don't really see the difference between a value
with the correct number of bits to be used as an address in assembler
and a C++ pointer. C++ pointers are typed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c105ccb-3ecd-43dd-a80f-370e01affdeb@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6310 |
He's a troll. Don't feet the troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa9ca7ae-0559-45fe-97d3-234c63697d82@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6312 |
On Jun 6, 2:04 pm, Joshua Maurice <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > He's a troll. Don't feet the troll. Don't feed* the troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 02:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <c7fHp.3882$fQ4.1431@newsfe16.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6310 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:slrniuqah1.16ra.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> On 2011-06-04, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrniukoa8.1fj5.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>>> On 2011-06-03, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> The C++ sees it as: "An object of array type contains a
>>> contiguously allocated nonempty set of N sub-objects of type T."
>>> Pointing to an array is pointing to an object of array type.
>>> Pointing to a sub-object in an array is pointing to something other
>>> than an object of the array type of the array that the sub-object is
>>> in.
>>>
>> You have quoted some text from that seems to describe an object of array
>> type.
>> As I said , and you have proved me correct, you can only see an array as
>> "a
>> single array type object". You cannot see it at as array of integer
>> objects( or whatever type it is).
>
> I have quoted the C++ standard. Seeing it as the C++ standard does
> is the proper way to see it when discussing C++, such as in the
> comp.lang.c++ newsgroup. Seeing it another way is seeing it in a
> way different from the C++ standard.
This is not a definition of the term "array", this piece of text you have
quoted is not the C++ std's way of saying an array is definitely not an
sequence of objects, this is saying and array TYPE object is ....and it
doesn't mean this is the only possible way to consider an array.
>
>>>> With the following code..
>>>> int arr[7];
>>>> int* p1 = arr;
>>>> int (*p2)[7] = &arr;
>>>>
>>>> Both the pointers point-to the first element in the array, and both
>>>> pointers
>>>> also point-to the array of integer objects. They are just different
>>>> types
>>>> of
>>>> pointers.
>>>> They both point to exactly the same location.
>>>
>>> Both pointers do not point to the first element of the array. p1
>>> points to the first element of the array; p2 points to the array.
>>> An array is not the same as its first element.
>> The address of an array is the same as the address of the first element,
>> and
>> a pointer is this address.
>
> The first element of an array is at the same memory location as the
> array. The value of a C++ pointer is not only a memory location; it
> is a typed memory location.
Rubbish the value of a pointer object does not contain any typeinfo. Its a
simple integer value that represents the address of the pointed to object.
> Ignoring their types, the p1 and p2 have
> the same value; however because p1 and p2 have different types, they
> do not point to the same entity. p1 points to the first element of
> the array, not to the array; p2 points to the array.
They point to exactly the same location.
The type of a pointer does not define what is pointed to.
>
>> They both point to exactly the same place and they both point to exactly
>> the
>> same array. Whether you view it as pointing to an array of pointing to
>> the
>> first element is just a POV.
>
> They do not both point to exactly the same array. One points to an
> array; the other may point to an element of that array. The point of
> view of the C++ standard is that a
>
> int (*)[]
>
> points to an array of int while a
>
> int *
>
> points to an int, the int it points to may be an element in an array
> of int.
>
This is completely made up. Where does the standard define that a pointer
type defines what is pointed to?
In fact where does the C++ standard define the term "points to"? It doesn't.
>>>> A example of both pointers accessing...;
>>>> a) A single object:
>>>> *p1;
>>>> **p2;
>>>> b) An array of obects:
>>>> *p2;
>>>> for(int i=0; i<7 ; ++i){ p1[i];}
>>>>
>>>> Note that in (b) p1 does not access the integer objects it just
>>>> accesses
>>>> the
>>>> array type object. p2 does access the array of integer objects but it
>>>> does
>>>> not access the array type object.
>>>> They only differ, because of their pointer types, in the way they
>>>> access
>>>> the
>>>> array. They both point to exactly the same array but in this different
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> p1 in (b) does not access an array type object. p1 is a pointer to
>>> int. The expression p1[i] is equivalent to *(p1+i). According to
>>> the C++ standard (start of paragraph 5 of 5.7 (Additive operators)):
>>
>> No p1 is not a pointer to integer(singular) , it is a pointer to
>> integers(plural).
>> Correct p1 doesn't access the array-type object , but it accesses the
>> array
>> of integer objects.
>
> The declarations were
>
> int arr[7];
> int* p1 = arr;
> int (*p2)[7] = &arr;
>
> p1 is a pointer to an integer.
No its a pointer to 7 integers.
> What C++ has available as a pointer to
> multiple integers is a pointer to an array of integers, such as p2.
> p1 is a pointer to an integer, accessing what p1 points to access
> that integer.
Accessing what p2 points to also accesses the same integer.
They are just different types of pointer but they both point to exactly the
same thing.
>
>>> When an expression that has integral type is added to or subtracted
>>> from a pointer, the result has the type of the pointer operand. If
>>> the pointer operand points to an element of an array object, and
>>> the array is large enough, the result points to an element offset
>>> from the original element such that the difference of the
>>> subscripts of the resulting and original array elements equals the
>>> integral expression.
>>>
>>> The result of (p1+i) is a pointer to int that points to the i-th
>>> element from the array element that p1 points to. p1 points to an
>>> array element; it does not point to the array that the element is in.
>>
>> Look at the expression :
>> p1 + i;
>>
>> It's a pointer plus offset(or index).
>> p1 is pointer to the beginning of the array
>> i is an offest that indexes the array.
>>
>> It cannot be any clearer that p1 points to the array.
>
> An element in an array has a different type than the array the
> element is in. The type of p1 is int*. When p1 points to an element
> of an array of int, it is pointing to an an int, not to an array.
> The type of a pointer to an array of int is of the form int(*)[].
> The C++ standard is clear about this in the following example from
> 8.1 (Types).
>
> 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.
That is the TYPE of pointer, nobody is disputing the pointer TYPE. But a
pointer TYPE does not define what is pointed to by that pointer.
A pointers' type simply tells us that that pointer is capable of addressing
objects of the given type.
For example:
char* cp;
This pointer is capable of addressing char objects, it doesn't point to a
char object.
>
> The distinction between a pointer to an array and a pointer to an
> element of that array is important for multidimensional arrays as
> arrays of arrays in C++. The declaration
>
> int x[3][5];
>
> declares an array of 3 array of 5 int. The expression x[i][j] is
> equivalent to *(*(x+i)+j). When that expression is evaluated
This is not what the Std says. The standard says that each subsctipt will be
calucalated individually.
i has a multiplier of 5xsizeof(int), j has the multiplier of 1xsizeof(int).
>
> - x is an array of 3 array of 5 int
> - array-to-pointer conversion results in a pointer to the first array
> of 5 int in x
> - adding i results in a pointer to the i-th array of 5 int in x
> - dereferencing that results in the i-th array of 5 int in x
> - array-to-pointer conversion results in a pointer to the first int in
> the i-th array of 5 int in x
> - adding j results in a pointer to the j-th int in the i-th array of
> 5 int in x
> - dereferencing that result in the j-th int in the i-th array of 5 int
> in x
>
> Multidimensional arrays in C++ depend on the distinction between a
> pointer to an array and a pointer to an element of that array. Not
> understanding this distinction may lead to confusion.
>
>>> Unlike p1, p2 is a pointer to an array type object. p2 points to an
>>> array. p1 does not point to an array; it points to the first
>>> element of the array that p2 points to.
>>
>> p1 and p2 point to exactly the same place, and the same array.
>
> p1 and p2 have different types. p1 points to an int, not to an
> array. p2 points to an array of 7 int.
They have different types, but they both point to the same location.
>
>>>> Consider a stack frame pointer, pointing to the stack. It doesn't
>>>> actually
>>>> point the whole stack at the same time but nonetheless its still
>>>> considered
>>>> to be pointing to the stack.
>>>
>>> There is a significant difference between a stack frame pointer and a
>>> C++ pointer: a C++ pointer is typed. In C++, the result of
>>> dereferencing a pointer to T, where T is a type, is a T.
>>
>> No, dereferencing a pointer of type pointer-to-T, will result in a T if
>> it
>> points to a valid T object.
>> The pointer type declares a pointer object that can address an object of
>> the
>> decalred type , for example:
>> int *p = 0;
>> p = &ix; /*assume x is valid int*/
>> p = new int[64];
>
> What I have written is about what a C++ compiler does, along the
> lines of what the C++ standard does in the folliwng sentence about
> the unary * operator: "If the type of the expression is pointer to T,
> the type of the result is T." These post are long enough without
> adding possible undefined behaviors when the program runs due to the
> value of a pointer to a non-polymorphic type.
This is explaining just what I said, if the type of the pointer is T then
derefernecing it addresses a T.
Assuming it points to a valid T type object.
This is not defining what p points to. p points to a location and whatever
is stored there is what is pointed to.
>
>> Here the pointer p is declared to be a pointer of type ptr-to-int, it
>> means
>> this pointer must be capable of pointing to a valid int object., It has
>> nothing to do with what it points to.
>> The above the pointer is shown pointing to nothing, an integer and an
>> array
>> of integers.
>
> What is shown is p having the null pointer value, pointing to an
> integer, and pointing to the first integer in an array of integers
> (the result of the expression (new int[64]) is a pointer to int,
> not a pointer to array of int).
No what is returned from the new expression is a pointer to the first
element *of an array* of integers.
When the pointer is used as a pointer to the array like so:
p[3];
The expression is evaluated as:
*(p+ 3xsizeof(int))
Where p is a pointer to the beginning of the array , and the offset to the
individual element is added.
This pointer is used as a pointer to the array, not to only just one
element. And it can be used as a pointer to the array because it points to
an array.
Yes its TYPE is int*, but this does not mean it can only point to one single
integer. Its type does not define what it points to.
>
>> Now consider the following code:
>> int *p;
>> What does this point to? Uninitialised memory that could contain
>> anything.
>> The pointer type only tells us that the declared pointer object is
>> capable
>> of pointing to an integer, it does not define what is pointed to, as you
>> have tried to imply.
>
> It is undefined what p points to. I have used shorter phrases, such
> as "is a T", rather than a longer ones, such as "is of type T". You
> are misreading "is a T" as "is an object of type T that exists when
> the program runs".
Well you have said that, becuase it is of type int*, it can only point to an
int.
Now you are saying it is undefined what it points to.
I repeat..the pointer type does not define what is pointed to.
You are shortening the term a "pointer type ptr-to-T" to mean the same as a
"pointer to T". But the two terms do not mean the same thing.
One term is specifically describing the pointer type. The other is referring
to whatever is at the location pointed to.
>
>>> The result of using a stack frame pointer as an address operand
>>> depends on what the operator does. Different operators move 1, 2, 4,
>>> 8, or some other number of bytes to or from storage starting at the
>>> address given by the address operand.
>>
>> What you seem to be talking about here is what I know as the PTR keyword
>> in
>> assembly, it may change in different assemblers.
>> I don't really see what this has to do with the fundamental concept that
>> a
>> SFP "points to" a stack frame.
>
> In that case, you don't really see the difference between a value
> with the correct number of bits to be used as an address in assembler
> and a C++ pointer. C++ pointers are typed.
The term "pointer" is not redefined because C++ pointers are typed.
A pointer is defined in the C standard and C++ inherits this defintion. A
pointer of type char* can point to a single char, and array of chars or
nothing at all. This is the view of the C standard and also Bjarne
Stroustrup in one of his C++ books.
With an array like so:
[int][int][int][int][int][int][int][int]
If a pointer 'p' points to the beinning of this array then the expression:
p+1;
points to the second element.
p+2;
points to the third element, and so on.
The pointer 'p' points to an array of integers, not only one single integer.
The TYPE of 'p' can only be int*, because if it were of type int (*)[8] then
p+2 would point away past the array.
The pointer 'p' is used as a pointer to an array of integers, it could not
be used as a pointer to an array if it only pointed to one single object.
It is a different concept from pointing to one single array type object.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web