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 9 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 21 Next page →
| From | Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 09:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4DE6453C.7080307@dignus.com> |
| In reply to | #5916 |
Paul wrote:
>
> "Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message
> news:4DE4F114.9040801@dignus.com...
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's great!
>>
>> So - now, given our understanding that an lvalue reference
>> to an array name is converted to be a pointer to the first element
>> of the array, we can examine things like array indexing (which
>> is really cool) and multiple dimension arrays...
>>
>> I propose we take a look at array indexing... would that be interesting?
>>
> I agree given that an array name is converted to a pointer to the
> array and not ONLY to a first element of the array.
> Can you agree that an array name converted to a pointer points to an
> array?
Oh - I'm sorry, but I can't, and when we get into how indexing works and
how arrays with multiple dimensions work I hope to motivate the argument
of why that isn't a correct characterization... but, that comes later.
That is, we need to be quite careful with the types of things; or the entire
mess comes crumbling down.
You see - there is the idea of a pointer to an array, and that is quite
different
from the idea of a pointer to an element of an array. One can imagine
that would
have to be the case, or else you could not distinguish between the
entire array
and an element of the array... which becomes paramount in the definition of
the indexing operation.
The language definition is quite precise that a pointer to an element of
an array
is nothing more than that; a pointer to one element of the array.
Since this could
easily be confused with the (real, although not yet
discussed/introduced) idea of
a pointer to an array then we have to stick with the language definition.
Again, when we consider how indexing works - this will become a very
important
distinction.
But, to movitate this, and "jump ahead" a little, this declaration
int (*ap)[5];
is a pointer to an array of 5 `int' elements. Those are the terms
reserved
by the language definition. "ap" is actually is a separate object (a
separate "box")
that points to 5 other `int' objects, thus "ap" is a pointer to an array
of 5 `int' elements.
That is very different from:
int *ip;
int array[5];
ip = array;
In this situation, it is very clear that `ip' is a pointer to an `int',
and that
it happens to point to the first `int' alement of array (because of the
rules
we've already discussed), but that's as far as the language definition
carries us.
But, "ip" is a box that can contain the location of an `int' box. "ap"
is a box
that can contain the location of an array of 5 `int' boxes... so, "ap"
and "ip"
are quite different types, different "kinds" of boxes.
And, as I mentioned before - that becomes very important when indexing
is defined.
So, while there may be other terms we could use, "pointer to an array"
has already
been taken by the language definition and is very well defined.
I could see myself throwing around some of the other words that have been
mentioned here (saying that, for example, a pointer points "into" an array.)
But those are colloquialisms without any formal definition... so, they
can mean
just about whatever anyone would like them to mean at any time, which makes
talking about them kinda difficult.
Maybe we could coin some new terms??? I would be happy to discuss them,
but I think they are outside the bounds of the C/C++ language definition.
(That is not to say that in some other programming language, or other
situation,
they would not be appropriate - I just believe that is not the correct
characterization
for C/C++, and certainly not in the spirit of the language definitions.)
- Dave Rivers -
--
rivers@dignus.com Work: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 15:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <WnsFp.26182$2E6.19294@newsfe18.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5967 |
"Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message news:4DE6453C.7080307@dignus.com... > Paul wrote: > >> >> "Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message >> news:4DE4F114.9040801@dignus.com... >> >>> Paul wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Yes I agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> That's great! >>> >>> So - now, given our understanding that an lvalue reference >>> to an array name is converted to be a pointer to the first element >>> of the array, we can examine things like array indexing (which >>> is really cool) and multiple dimension arrays... >>> >>> I propose we take a look at array indexing... would that be interesting? >>> >> I agree given that an array name is converted to a pointer to the array >> and not ONLY to a first element of the array. >> Can you agree that an array name converted to a pointer points to an >> array? > > > Oh - I'm sorry, but I can't, and when we get into how indexing works and > how arrays with multiple dimensions work I hope to motivate the argument > of why that isn't a correct characterization... but, that comes later. > > That is, we need to be quite careful with the types of things; or the > entire > mess comes crumbling down. > > You see - there is the idea of a pointer to an array, and that is quite > different > from the idea of a pointer to an element of an array. One can imagine > that would > have to be the case, or else you could not distinguish between the entire > array > and an element of the array... which becomes paramount in the definition > of > the indexing operation. I disagree with you. The following is a pointer to an array of integers: int arr[10]; int* p_arr = arr; The pointer TYPE is pointer to integer, but what it points to is an array of integers. > > The language definition is quite precise that a pointer to an element of > an array > is nothing more than that; a pointer to one element of the array. Since > this could > easily be confused with the (real, although not yet discussed/introduced) > idea of > a pointer to an array then we have to stick with the language definition. > > Again, when we consider how indexing works - this will become a very > important > distinction. > > But, to movitate this, and "jump ahead" a little, this declaration > > int (*ap)[5]; > > is a pointer to an array of 5 `int' elements. Those are the terms > reserved > by the language definition. "ap" is actually is a separate object (a > separate "box") > that points to 5 other `int' objects, thus "ap" is a pointer to an array > of 5 `int' elements. > That is very different from: > > int *ip; > int array[5]; > > ip = array; > > > In this situation, it is very clear that `ip' is a pointer to an `int', > and that > it happens to point to the first `int' alement of array (because of the > rules > we've already discussed), but that's as far as the language definition > carries us. > > But, "ip" is a box that can contain the location of an `int' box. "ap" is > a box > that can contain the location of an array of 5 `int' boxes... so, "ap" and > "ip" > are quite different types, different "kinds" of boxes. They are different types but the both store the same address, the initial element of the array. 'ap' does not contain the location of five boxes , it contains only the location of the initial box, as does 'ip'. > > And, as I mentioned before - that becomes very important when indexing > is defined. > > So, while there may be other terms we could use, "pointer to an array" has > already > been taken by the language definition and is very well defined. I was not using the term "pointer to an array" as defined by the language definition. I was using it for what it means to me. If the language defines "pointer to an X" to mean "pointer of type pointer to X" then lets use a different term. 'ip' points to an array of integer objects, it is of type "pointer to int" > > I could see myself throwing around some of the other words that have been > mentioned here (saying that, for example, a pointer points "into" an > array.) > But those are colloquialisms without any formal definition... so, they can > mean > just about whatever anyone would like them to mean at any time, which > makes > talking about them kinda difficult. > > Maybe we could coin some new terms??? I would be happy to discuss them, > but I think they are outside the bounds of the C/C++ language definition. > > (That is not to say that in some other programming language, or other > situation, > they would not be appropriate - I just believe that is not the correct > characterization > for C/C++, and certainly not in the spirit of the language definitions.) > Consider the following: void* p1 = (void*)new int; void* p2 = (void*)new int[55]; p1 points to a single integer. p2 points to an array of integers. This is what I mean when I say 'ip' is a pointer to an array. I don't mean it's type, I am talking about what it points to. In C++ a pointer type int* can point to: A single integer or an array of integers. Null. Some random uninitialised memory. Remember what our definition of an array is. Just a sequence of objects in memory and nothing more. If that sequence of objects are int types then the pointer to point to them must be of type int*. Also we agreed that 'arr' is a name trhat refers to this array of objects so with: int arr[66]; int* p = arr; p is now a pointer that refers to the same array of integer objects that 'arr' referred to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 16:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <W6ednbGEMNpcw3vQnZ2dnUVZ8rmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5968 |
On 01/06/2011 15:53, Paul wrote: [snip] > Consider the following: > > void* p1 = (void*)new int; > void* p2 = (void*)new int[55]; > > p1 points to a single integer. > p2 points to an array of integers. > Wrong; p2 points to the initial element of the array of integers; the Standard is quite clear as to what new[] returns: 5.3.4/2 "If it is an array, the new-expression returns a pointer to the initial element of the array." Also your 'void*' C-style casts are superfluous; we have been down this road before proving that you are too stubborn to learn anything. [snip] HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 19:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <NMvFp.24841$Wy2.15228@newsfe23.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5972 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:W6ednbGEMNpcw3vQnZ2dnUVZ8rmdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 15:53, Paul wrote: > > [snip] > >> Consider the following: >> >> void* p1 = (void*)new int; >> void* p2 = (void*)new int[55]; >> >> p1 points to a single integer. >> p2 points to an array of integers. >> > > Wrong; p2 points to the initial element of the array of integers; the > Standard is quite clear as to what new[] returns: > > 5.3.4/2 > "If it is an array, the new-expression > returns a pointer to the initial element of the array." > Saying that a pointer points to the first element of an array, implies what is pointed to is an array of objects, not one single object. You are taking some narrow minded view by suggesting it does not point to the array, it points to the first element of the array. An array can be seen as nothing more than a sequence of objects of the same type , or it can be seen as some more complex non modifiable object of array type. When referring to a pointer to an array , you chose the latter meaning of 'array' as the only correct interpretation because it suits your argument. Lets say we have a Domino object, kinda like a tuple, call it a D type. D* arr[28]; D* dominos =arr; dominos points to the initial domino in the set. But it can also point to all dominos in the set: dominos[0]; dominos[1]; dominos[2]; etc,etc. By adding an index(or an offset) we can use this pointer to point to any domino in the set. This pointer can only point to one domino at a time , but it can point to any of the dominos in the set. It is regarded as a pointer to the set of dominos, not a pointer to one single domino.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86ednfinyuKGEXvQnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5986 |
On 01/06/2011 19:44, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:W6ednbGEMNpcw3vQnZ2dnUVZ8rmdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 01/06/2011 15:53, Paul wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> Consider the following: >>> >>> void* p1 = (void*)new int; >>> void* p2 = (void*)new int[55]; >>> >>> p1 points to a single integer. >>> p2 points to an array of integers. >>> >> >> Wrong; p2 points to the initial element of the array of integers; the >> Standard is quite clear as to what new[] returns: >> >> 5.3.4/2 >> "If it is an array, the new-expression >> returns a pointer to the initial element of the array." >> > Saying that a pointer points to the first element of an array, implies > what is pointed to is an array of objects, not one single object. You > are taking some narrow minded view by suggesting it does not point to > the array, it points to the first element of the array. Wrong; the first element of an array is a single object. My view is not narrow minded as my view is backed up by the Standard (which is an appeal to authority, yes, but the Standard is the ultimate authority as far as this newsgroup is concerned). > > An array can be seen as nothing more than a sequence of objects of the > same type , or it can be seen as some more complex non modifiable object > of array type. An array is an object which contains 1 or more contiguous sub-objects of the same type. The fact that an array object is non-modifiable is not relevant to this discussion. > When referring to a pointer to an array , you chose the latter meaning > of 'array' as the only correct interpretation because it suits your > argument. A pointer to an array is a pointer to an object of array type yes; what is your point? > > Lets say we have a Domino object, kinda like a tuple, call it a D type. > D* arr[28]; > D* dominos =arr; That is an error; 'arr' and 'dominos' are unrelated types. > > dominos points to the initial domino in the set. But it can also point > to all dominos in the set: > dominos[0]; > dominos[1]; > dominos[2]; > etc,etc. > > By adding an index(or an offset) we can use this pointer to point to any > domino in the set. > This pointer can only point to one domino at a time , but it can point > to any of the dominos in the set. > > It is regarded as a pointer to the set of dominos, not a pointer to one > single domino. Whether it is bananas, strawberries or dominoes it makes no difference to that fact that a pointer of type 'foo*' can only point to objects of type 'foo' (or objects of a type related to 'foo'); it cannot point to objects of type array of 'foo'. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 21:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <StxFp.29156$2E6.26660@newsfe18.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5992 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:86ednfinyuKGEXvQnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 19:44, Paul wrote: >> >> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:W6ednbGEMNpcw3vQnZ2dnUVZ8rmdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 01/06/2011 15:53, Paul wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Consider the following: >>>> >>>> void* p1 = (void*)new int; >>>> void* p2 = (void*)new int[55]; >>>> >>>> p1 points to a single integer. >>>> p2 points to an array of integers. >>>> >>> >>> Wrong; p2 points to the initial element of the array of integers; the >>> Standard is quite clear as to what new[] returns: >>> >>> 5.3.4/2 >>> "If it is an array, the new-expression >>> returns a pointer to the initial element of the array." >>> >> Saying that a pointer points to the first element of an array, implies >> what is pointed to is an array of objects, not one single object. You >> are taking some narrow minded view by suggesting it does not point to >> the array, it points to the first element of the array. > > Wrong; the first element of an array is a single object. My view is not > narrow minded as my view is backed up by the Standard (which is an appeal > to authority, yes, but the Standard is the ultimate authority as far as > this newsgroup is concerned). The pointer points to a location, the location it points to is both the location of the first element and the beginning of the array. What exactly is the definiton of a pointer in C++. As far as I can see a pointer is not defined the C++ standard but it is defined in the C standard. I don't know if the C standard is to be referred to if we need the definition of a pointer, do you know ? > >> >> An array can be seen as nothing more than a sequence of objects of the >> same type , or it can be seen as some more complex non modifiable object >> of array type. > > An array is an object which contains 1 or more contiguous sub-objects of > the same type. The fact that an array object is non-modifiable is not > relevant to this discussion. > This is just going around in circles , you are speaking about an array as being a non modifiable object of array type. You idea of a pointer to an array becomes a mess when you consider 2d arrays. A 2d array is an array of array-type objects. So you'd need a pointer of type : int (*p)[n][n]; To point to a 2d array, and this is not the way things are described in the standard. >> When referring to a pointer to an array , you chose the latter meaning >> of 'array' as the only correct interpretation because it suits your >> argument. > > A pointer to an array is a pointer to an object of array type yes; what is > your point? But you refuse to accept that a pointer of type int* can point to an array of int objects. Do you not see the difference between: (a) Pointer to integer objects (b) Pointer to an object of array type. > >> >> Lets say we have a Domino object, kinda like a tuple, call it a D type. >> D* arr[28]; >> D* dominos =arr; > > That is an error; 'arr' and 'dominos' are unrelated types. > Yes correct I made a type it sohuld've been: D arr[28]; But then that is pretty obviously a simple typo. >> >> dominos points to the initial domino in the set. But it can also point >> to all dominos in the set: >> dominos[0]; >> dominos[1]; >> dominos[2]; >> etc,etc. >> >> By adding an index(or an offset) we can use this pointer to point to any >> domino in the set. >> This pointer can only point to one domino at a time , but it can point >> to any of the dominos in the set. >> >> It is regarded as a pointer to the set of dominos, not a pointer to one >> single domino. > > Whether it is bananas, strawberries or dominoes it makes no difference to > that fact that a pointer of type 'foo*' can only point to objects of type > 'foo' (or objects of a type related to 'foo'); it cannot point to objects > of type array of 'foo'. > But you contradict yourself because you say that a pointer of type foo* can point to objectS(NOTE THE FUCKIN PLURAL) of the foo. Yet you do not accept that a foo* can actually point to objects of type foo and you'll say in another statement that it can only point to one single foo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <U4ydnVAvzMVEN3vQnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #6010 |
On 01/06/2011 21:41, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:86ednfinyuKGEXvQnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 01/06/2011 19:44, Paul wrote: [snip] >>> It is regarded as a pointer to the set of dominos, not a pointer to one >>> single domino. >> >> Whether it is bananas, strawberries or dominoes it makes no difference >> to that fact that a pointer of type 'foo*' can only point to objects >> of type 'foo' (or objects of a type related to 'foo'); it cannot point >> to objects of type array of 'foo'. >> > But you contradict yourself because you say that a pointer of type foo* > can point to objectS(NOTE THE FUCKIN PLURAL) of the foo. > Yet you do not accept that a foo* can actually point to objects of type > foo and you'll say in another statement that it can only point to one > single foo Your comprehension of the English language when applied to technical discussions is very poor. What I said does not mean that a pointer of type 'foo*' can point to more than one object; what I said means that a pointer of type 'foo*' can point to objects of type 'foo' but not *more* than more than one object *at the same time*. Your thinking does not seem to be sufficiently sophisticated to make "leaps of logic": int object1; int object2; int* p; p = &object1; p = &object2; 'p' above pointed to two objects *but not at the same time*. So no contradiction on my part just faulty comprehension on your part. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 22:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9kyFp.31141$El6.15242@newsfe21.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6015 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:U4ydnVAvzMVEN3vQnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 21:41, Paul wrote: >> >> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:86ednfinyuKGEXvQnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 01/06/2011 19:44, Paul wrote: > > [snip] > >>>> It is regarded as a pointer to the set of dominos, not a pointer to one >>>> single domino. >>> >>> Whether it is bananas, strawberries or dominoes it makes no difference >>> to that fact that a pointer of type 'foo*' can only point to objects >>> of type 'foo' (or objects of a type related to 'foo'); it cannot point >>> to objects of type array of 'foo'. >>> >> But you contradict yourself because you say that a pointer of type foo* >> can point to objectS(NOTE THE FUCKIN PLURAL) of the foo. >> Yet you do not accept that a foo* can actually point to objects of type >> foo and you'll say in another statement that it can only point to one >> single foo > > Your comprehension of the English language when applied to technical > discussions is very poor. What I said does not mean that a pointer of > type 'foo*' can point to more than one object; what I said means that a > pointer of type 'foo*' can point to objects of type 'foo' but not *more* > than more than one object *at the same time*. Your thinking does not seem > to be sufficiently sophisticated to make "leaps of logic": > This is ridiculous whether its English applied to a technical discussion or any other kind of discussion. A plural implies more than one object. A pointer to objectS(plural) , is distinctly different to a pointer to a single object. Time is a completely differently variable to add on top of that. The term you need is simultaneously, so what you seem to be saying now is that a pointer of type int* CAN point to more than one int object but just not all at the same time, Is this correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 23:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <472dnTX-tpH7JnvQnZ2dnUVZ8jWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #6022 |
On 01/06/2011 22:39, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:U4ydnVAvzMVEN3vQnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 01/06/2011 21:41, Paul wrote: >>> >>> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:86ednfinyuKGEXvQnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 01/06/2011 19:44, Paul wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>>> It is regarded as a pointer to the set of dominos, not a pointer to >>>>> one >>>>> single domino. >>>> >>>> Whether it is bananas, strawberries or dominoes it makes no difference >>>> to that fact that a pointer of type 'foo*' can only point to objects >>>> of type 'foo' (or objects of a type related to 'foo'); it cannot point >>>> to objects of type array of 'foo'. >>>> >>> But you contradict yourself because you say that a pointer of type foo* >>> can point to objectS(NOTE THE FUCKIN PLURAL) of the foo. >>> Yet you do not accept that a foo* can actually point to objects of type >>> foo and you'll say in another statement that it can only point to one >>> single foo >> >> Your comprehension of the English language when applied to technical >> discussions is very poor. What I said does not mean that a pointer of >> type 'foo*' can point to more than one object; what I said means that >> a pointer of type 'foo*' can point to objects of type 'foo' but not >> *more* than more than one object *at the same time*. Your thinking >> does not seem to be sufficiently sophisticated to make "leaps of logic": >> > This is ridiculous whether its English applied to a technical discussion > or any other kind of discussion. A plural implies more than one object. > A pointer to objectS(plural) , is distinctly different to a pointer to a > single object. I did not use the words "A pointer to objects" I used the words "point to objects"; it is not my fault that your lack of English comprehension skills is so poor. You are causing much wasting of time; you don't have a clue and you are extremely annoying. You deliberately snipped/ignored my explanation so here it is again: int object1; int object2; int* rocketscience; rocketscience = &object1; rocketscience = &object2; 'rocketscience' is a pointer to an 'int' it being able to point to a single 'int' object or no object at all and 'rocketscience' pointed to two 'int' objects; this is NOT a contradiction; you need some degree of intelligence to understand it and I cannot help you increase your intelligence if you can't understand it. > Time is a completely differently variable to add on top of that. The > term you need is simultaneously, so what you seem to be saying now is > that a pointer of type int* CAN point to more than one int object but > just not all at the same time, Is this correct? What is correct is that a pointer of type 'int*' can only point to one 'int' object at a time (or no object at all); it cannot point to an array of 'int' objects. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 23:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v8zFp.31143$El6.24446@newsfe21.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6035 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:472dnTX-tpH7JnvQnZ2dnUVZ8jWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 22:39, Paul wrote: >>> [snip] >>> >>>>>> It is regarded as a pointer to the set of dominos, not a pointer to >>>>>> one >>>>>> single domino. >>>>> >>>>> Whether it is bananas, strawberries or dominoes it makes no difference >>>>> to that fact that a pointer of type 'foo*' can only point to objects >>>>> of type 'foo' (or objects of a type related to 'foo'); it cannot point >>>>> to objects of type array of 'foo'. >>>>> >>>> But you contradict yourself because you say that a pointer of type foo* >>>> can point to objectS(NOTE THE FUCKIN PLURAL) of the foo. >>>> Yet you do not accept that a foo* can actually point to objects of type >>>> foo and you'll say in another statement that it can only point to one >>>> single foo >>> >>> Your comprehension of the English language when applied to technical >>> discussions is very poor. What I said does not mean that a pointer of >>> type 'foo*' can point to more than one object; what I said means that >>> a pointer of type 'foo*' can point to objects of type 'foo' but not >>> *more* than more than one object *at the same time*. Your thinking >>> does not seem to be sufficiently sophisticated to make "leaps of logic": >>> >> This is ridiculous whether its English applied to a technical discussion >> or any other kind of discussion. A plural implies more than one object. >> A pointer to objectS(plural) , is distinctly different to a pointer to a >> single object. > > I did not use the words "A pointer to objects" I used the words "point to > objects"; it is not my fault that your lack of English comprehension > skills is so poor. You are causing much wasting of time; you don't have a > clue and you are extremely annoying. > If a pointer "points to" objectS, then it must be a "pointer to" objectS. > You deliberately snipped/ignored my explanation so here it is again: > > int object1; > int object2; > int* rocketscience; > rocketscience = &object1; > rocketscience = &object2; > > 'rocketscience' is a pointer to an 'int' it being able to point to a > single 'int' object or no object at all and 'rocketscience' pointed to two > 'int' objects; this is NOT a contradiction; you need some degree of > intelligence to understand it and I cannot help you increase your > intelligence if you can't understand it. rocketscience points to more than one object. If the code were put as follows: int arr[5]; int* rs = &arr[0]; rs = &arr[1]; rs = &arr[2]; rs = &arr[3]; rs = &arr[4]; Then rs points to all the integer objects of the array of integer objects. > >> Time is a completely differently variable to add on top of that. The >> term you need is simultaneously, so what you seem to be saying now is >> that a pointer of type int* CAN point to more than one int object but >> just not all at the same time, Is this correct? > > What is correct is that a pointer of type 'int*' can only point to one > 'int' object at a time (or no object at all); it cannot point to an array > of 'int' objects. > As I showed above the pointer can point to the complete array, element by element. What is your problem with this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 12:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4DE669DE.2050400@dignus.com> |
| In reply to | #5968 |
Paul wrote:
> Consider the following:
>
> void* p1 = (void*)new int;
> void* p2 = (void*)new int[55];
>
> p1 points to a single integer.
> p2 points to an array of integers.
>
> This is what I mean when I say 'ip' is a pointer to an array. I don't
> mean it's type, I am talking about what it points to.
>
Oh ... uh... I'm not sure how to discuss this.
When you say "I don't mean its type" - do you mean to imply that you are now
no longer talking about/referring to the C/C++ language definition, but
something else?
Because, if we're not talking about the type of a variable, then I'm not
quite
sure what we're talking about, and I think, the language definition is
pretty clear that variables have types and those types are profoundly
meaningful
to the semantic operations of the language.
That is, I'm not sure exactly how to talk about something if we have decided
to throw out the language definition.
I suppose we can introduce new ideas, but, I think, at that point, we're not
talking about C/C++ any more, but something else.... which really isn't
on-topic.
>
> In C++ a pointer type int* can point to:
> A single integer or an array of integers.
> Null.
> Some random uninitialised memory.
I really don't understand that... I'm sorry, but I don't get it.
I believe a statement that conforms with the language definition might be
that a variable of type `int *' can point to an `int'. The value of
that variable
might be any valid address or NULL.
That is, the variable would be a box, and that box can contain the location
of another `int' box, or the 'special' value NULL.
I think that is a characterization that more closely follows the language
definition.
>
>
> Remember what our definition of an array is. Just a sequence of
> objects in memory and nothing more.
> If that sequence of objects are int types then the pointer to point to
> them must be of type int*.
I'm sorry, but I think I have to disagree with some of that. I do
agree on our
definition of an array.
I think I would say that a pointer to one of the elements of the array would
necessarily be an `int *'. But, in C/C++, it's very easy to construct a
pointer
to the entire array, which is quite different. For example:
int (*ap)[5];
is a pointer to an entire collection of 5 `int' elements. It does not
point to
single element, but an entire collection of 5 `int' elements. It is a
pointer-to-an-array.
The type is very meaningful, and very important, especially in the context
of operations (indexing, for example) on the array.
> Also we agreed that 'arr' is a name trhat refers to this array of
> objects so with:
> int arr[66];
> int* p = arr;
>
> p is now a pointer that refers to the same array of integer objects
> that 'arr' referred to.
>
>
>
We did agree that 'arr' is a name that refers to the array of objects.
However, we also agreed that in this context, the name 'arr' does not
refer to the entire set of elements.
We agreed that referencing that name in this context did not produce
the array of objects, but instead produced the address of the first element
of the array.
So - in the statement:
int *p = arr;
the 'arr' there does not refer to the entire set of elements - it refers
only
to the address of the first element. I do recall you agreeing with
that... is
that not right?
So - I believe we've been here before, and we agreed that 'p' points to
the first
element of the array. The type of 'p' is clearly an `int *' (pointer
to int), and since
it points to the first element of the array, this is all consistent.
I cannot say 'p' points to the entire array, because that is not its type.
I can say that 'p' points to the first element; I believe that's all the
C/C++
standard and common practice say in this matter.
I can also agree that the starting address of the entire array, and the
starting
address of the first element are the same, since the array is a contiguous
collection of same-typed elements.
Because of this, I might be tempted to say 'p' points to the start of
the array,
which is also true.
But 'p' is not a pointer-to-an-array, it is a pointer-to-int that
happens to be
pointing to the first element of an array of 5 `int' elements.
I believe that would be the terminology that is most accepted and most
closely
matches the language definition.
I had hoped to explain why this is important, by going on to discuss the
indexing
operator and how that relates to pointer arithmetic (which is why
getting the
type correct is critical.)
But, if we cannot agree to stick with the language definition, then it
is going
to be difficult to get a firm understanding of subsequent concepts.
Would you like to continue, using the C/C++ language definitions, or should
we agree to disagree here?
- Dave Rivers -
--
rivers@dignus.com Work: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 19:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <govFp.36674$%o4.1089@newsfe16.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5976 |
"Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message
news:4DE669DE.2050400@dignus.com...
> Paul wrote:
>
>> Consider the following:
>>
>> void* p1 = (void*)new int;
>> void* p2 = (void*)new int[55];
>>
>> p1 points to a single integer.
>> p2 points to an array of integers.
>>
>> This is what I mean when I say 'ip' is a pointer to an array. I don't
>> mean it's type, I am talking about what it points to.
>>
>
> Oh ... uh... I'm not sure how to discuss this.
>
> When you say "I don't mean its type" - do you mean to imply that you are
> now
> no longer talking about/referring to the C/C++ language definition, but
> something else?
No not at all.
A pointer is an object that references another location. The term "a pointer
to X" fundamentally means the pointer points to X, whatever X may be.
The type of X is irrelevant because a pointer doesn't point to a type is
points to a memory location.
Having said that, a pointer has a type. This is a completely different
concept from what the pointer points to. A pointer of type pointer to X
doesn't need to point to an X, for example:
X* p =0;
Ok obviously this pointer is null, so points to nothing , but the
declaration that p is of type pointer to X means that p is capable of
addressing an X.
For example an int* cannot address a single char because when derefenced it
will address 4 bytes(on my system) and a char is only 1 byte.
But in the example above p can point to an X or an array of X's because of
the size of memory chucks it addresses, for example:
X* p = new X[100];
++p;
p now points to the 2nd element of the array of X's , but it also still
points to the array of X's. Just because it can point to a single element
does not mean it cannot also be pointing at the whole array, it all depends
on the way the pointer is used and how the programmer treats it. Another
example:
void foo(X* arg, int size){
for (int i=0; i<size; ++i){
arg[i] = i -1; }
}
The above function treats the pointer as an array and it can because the
pointer points to an array.
Yes it does specifically point to one single element at a time but that is
just the nature of how computers address arrays, you cannot address a whole
array at once unless it something silly like size one.
> Because, if we're not talking about the type of a variable, then I'm not
> quite
> sure what we're talking about, and I think, the language definition is
> pretty clear that variables have types and those types are profoundly
> meaningful
> to the semantic operations of the language.
>
Yes there are types and this is why I was speaking about this non modifiable
object of array type.
We have to introduce this new type to understand how arrays and pointers to
array work in C++.
But what is this object type?
I believe that when we introduce this type we need to redefine exactly what
'arr' is. Is it really just a name that references a simple sequence of
integer objects , or is there more going on under the hood?
> That is, I'm not sure exactly how to talk about something if we have
> decided
> to throw out the language definition.
>
> I suppose we can introduce new ideas, but, I think, at that point, we're
> not
> talking about C/C++ any more, but something else.... which really isn't
> on-topic.
>
I'm not sure exactly which definiton you speak about here.
>>
>> In C++ a pointer type int* can point to:
>> A single integer or an array of integers.
>> Null.
>> Some random uninitialised memory.
>
>
> I really don't understand that... I'm sorry, but I don't get it.
>
> I believe a statement that conforms with the language definition might be
> that a variable of type `int *' can point to an `int'. The value of that
> variable
> might be any valid address or NULL.
>
> That is, the variable would be a box, and that box can contain the
> location
> of another `int' box, or the 'special' value NULL.
>
> I think that is a characterization that more closely follows the language
> definition.
>
You keep going on about some language definition, what definition are you
talking about exactly?
>>
>>
>> Remember what our definition of an array is. Just a sequence of objects
>> in memory and nothing more.
>> If that sequence of objects are int types then the pointer to point to
>> them must be of type int*.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I think I have to disagree with some of that. I do agree
> on our
> definition of an array.
>
> I think I would say that a pointer to one of the elements of the array
> would
> necessarily be an `int *'. But, in C/C++, it's very easy to construct a
> pointer
> to the entire array, which is quite different. For example:
>
> int (*ap)[5];
>
> is a pointer to an entire collection of 5 `int' elements. It does not
> point to
> single element, but an entire collection of 5 `int' elements. It is a
> pointer-to-an-array.
Its just a different type of pointer , it points to exactly the same
location.
This pointer type does not point-to anything different form an int*, they
both point to the first element in an array integers. The difference is that
this pointer points to a non modifiable object of array type, when
initiallised with the following:
int arr[5];
int (*p)[5] = &arr;
*p = ??
What does this pointer point to? I have said it is this non modifiable
object of array type, because to me thats what it seem to point to.
Indirectly this pointer points to exactly the same thing as an int* would
point to, that is the first element of the array:
**p = some_int_value;
It points to exactly the same place as an int* would point to but it has an
extra level of indirection.
>
> The type is very meaningful, and very important, especially in the context
> of operations (indexing, for example) on the array.
>
>> Also we agreed that 'arr' is a name trhat refers to this array of objects
>> so with:
>> int arr[66];
>> int* p = arr;
>>
>> p is now a pointer that refers to the same array of integer objects that
>> 'arr' referred to.
>>
>>
>>
>
> We did agree that 'arr' is a name that refers to the array of objects.
>
> However, we also agreed that in this context, the name 'arr' does not
> refer to the entire set of elements.
>
> We agreed that referencing that name in this context did not produce
> the array of objects, but instead produced the address of the first
> element
> of the array.
>
> So - in the statement:
>
> int *p = arr;
>
> the 'arr' there does not refer to the entire set of elements - it refers
> only
> to the address of the first element. I do recall you agreeing with
> that... is
> that not right?
No I doubt I'd have agreed to that, I agree that it points to the first
element but I think it also points to the array.
This is where our differences lie, I believe you think that because it
points to the first element it cannot also point to the array.
>
> So - I believe we've been here before, and we agreed that 'p' points to
> the first
> element of the array. The type of 'p' is clearly an `int *' (pointer to
> int), and since
> it points to the first element of the array, this is all consistent.
>
> I cannot say 'p' points to the entire array, because that is not its type.
>
Its type does not define what is pointed to.
> I can say that 'p' points to the first element; I believe that's all the
> C/C++
> standard and common practice say in this matter.
>
> I can also agree that the starting address of the entire array, and the
> starting
> address of the first element are the same, since the array is a contiguous
> collection of same-typed elements.
> Because of this, I might be tempted to say 'p' points to the start of the
> array,
> which is also true.
Of course its true thats exactly where it points, first and foremost it
points to the beginning of the array. That is the main object it points to.
>
> But 'p' is not a pointer-to-an-array, it is a pointer-to-int that happens
> to be
> pointing to the first element of an array of 5 `int' elements.
You are confusing pointer types and what is pointed to here.
When you say 'p' is not a pointer-to-an-array what you are meaning is 'p' is
not of type pointer-to-an-array.
It doesn't *just happen* to be pointing to the first element of the array by
some sort of chance, it points primarily to an array of integer objects and
thats why it points to the first element.
It doesn't *just happen* that this integer is the first element of an array.
>
> I believe that would be the terminology that is most accepted and most
> closely
> matches the language definition.
>
Well I draw your attention so a couple of quotes from highly regarded
experts who think in the same way as me:
http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html
"The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place which
holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can point
almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of chars, or
nowhere [footnote]"
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html
"char* - pointer to a char or an array of char. Typically assumed to point
to a C-style string. Prefer a standard library string over a C-style string
when you can. TC++PL 2.3.3, 13.5.2. "
> I had hoped to explain why this is important, by going on to discuss the
> indexing
> operator and how that relates to pointer arithmetic (which is why getting
> the
> type correct is critical.)
> But, if we cannot agree to stick with the language definition, then it is
> going
> to be difficult to get a firm understanding of subsequent concepts.
>
> Would you like to continue, using the C/C++ language definitions, or
> should
> we agree to disagree here?
>
Well I don't know what definitons you are speaking about.
As far as I can tell, the way I see arrays and pointers is the correct way ,
and it never did me any harm. If the C++ standard has some definiton that
suggests a pointer of type pointer-to-X can only ever point to a single X
object and nothing else then I would probably ignore the C++ standard and
carry on with the opinion that the comittee had all become brian dead
idiots, TBH :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 19:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4q6dnat63tCPGnvQnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5983 |
On 01/06/2011 19:18, Paul wrote: > "Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message > news:4DE669DE.2050400@dignus.com... [snip] >> I believe that would be the terminology that is most accepted and most >> closely >> matches the language definition. >> > Well I draw your attention so a couple of quotes from highly regarded > experts who think in the same way as me: > http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html > "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place > which holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can > point almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of chars, > or nowhere [footnote]" > > http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html > "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char. Typically assumed to > point to a C-style string. Prefer a standard library string over a > C-style string when you can. TC++PL 2.3.3, 13.5.2. " Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy; you have been told this before; try paying attention. 'char*' cannot point to an array of char; 'char*' can only ever point to a single char object (or no object at all): const char* single_char = "an array of char"; assert(sizeof(*single_char) == 1); const char (&an_array_of_char)[17] = "an array of char"; assert(sizeof(an_array_of_char) == 17); const char (*still_an_array_of_char)[17] = &an_array_of_char; assert(sizeof(*still_an_array_of_char) == 17); HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <H8wFp.34786$6K4.3279@newsfe14.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5987 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:4q6dnat63tCPGnvQnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 19:18, Paul wrote: >> "Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message >> news:4DE669DE.2050400@dignus.com... > > [snip] > >>> I believe that would be the terminology that is most accepted and most >>> closely >>> matches the language definition. >>> >> Well I draw your attention so a couple of quotes from highly regarded >> experts who think in the same way as me: >> http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html >> "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place >> which holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can >> point almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of chars, >> or nowhere [footnote]" >> >> http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html >> "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char. Typically assumed to >> point to a C-style string. Prefer a standard library string over a >> C-style string when you can. TC++PL 2.3.3, 13.5.2. " > > Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy; you have been told this > before; try paying attention. > I don't know what you mean by "appealing to authority" because I am not appealing to anyone. I was simply showing that the terminology I use is also used by respected experts. > 'char*' cannot point to an array of char; 'char*' can only ever point to a > single char object (or no object at all): Perhaps you do know C++ better than Bjarne Stroustrup or Steve Summit, perhaps you don't. Whatever the case may be I prefer to think that a pointer that points to an array of chars is of type char*. Having said that I also fully understand that there can be a pointer type char (*)[n], but I see that as a pointer with a different level of indirection that is most commonly used as a pointer to a 2d array because it requires two dereferences to access the array of chars that it points to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eoadnWkpMbsTDXvQnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5990 |
On 01/06/2011 20:10, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:4q6dnat63tCPGnvQnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 01/06/2011 19:18, Paul wrote: >>> "Thomas David Rivers" <rivers@dignus.com> wrote in message >>> news:4DE669DE.2050400@dignus.com... >> >> [snip] >> >>>> I believe that would be the terminology that is most accepted and most >>>> closely >>>> matches the language definition. >>>> >>> Well I draw your attention so a couple of quotes from highly regarded >>> experts who think in the same way as me: >>> http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html >>> "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place >>> which holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can >>> point almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of chars, >>> or nowhere [footnote]" >>> >>> http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html >>> "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char. Typically assumed to >>> point to a C-style string. Prefer a standard library string over a >>> C-style string when you can. TC++PL 2.3.3, 13.5.2. " >> >> Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy; you have been told this >> before; try paying attention. >> > I don't know what you mean by "appealing to authority" because I am not > appealing to anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority > I was simply showing that the terminology I use is also used by > respected experts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority > >> 'char*' cannot point to an array of char; 'char*' can only ever point >> to a single char object (or no object at all): > > Perhaps you do know C++ better than Bjarne Stroustrup or Steve Summit, > perhaps you don't. What has Bjarne Stroustrup knowing C++ better than me got to do with anything? We all make mistakes; we all sometimes write something which is less formal or less technically accurate than it should be; you certainly are. > > Whatever the case may be I prefer to think that a pointer that points to > an array of chars is of type char*. Having said that I also fully > understand that there can be a pointer type char (*)[n], but I see that > as a pointer with a different level of indirection that is most commonly > used as a pointer to a 2d array because it requires two dereferences to > access the array of chars that it points to. 'char(*)[n]' is a pointer to a 1D array not a pointer to a 2D array; the first dereference evaluates to a reference to the array and the second dereference evaluates to a reference to the array element. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 22:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMxFp.12335$Dk2.5955@newsfe04.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6001 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:eoadnWkpMbsTDXvQnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 20:10, Paul wrote: >>> [snip] >>> >>>>> I believe that would be the terminology that is most accepted and most >>>>> closely >>>>> matches the language definition. >>>>> >>>> Well I draw your attention so a couple of quotes from highly regarded >>>> experts who think in the same way as me: >>>> http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html >>>> "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place >>>> which holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can >>>> point almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of >>>> chars, >>>> or nowhere [footnote]" >>>> >>>> http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html >>>> "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char. Typically assumed to >>>> point to a C-style string. Prefer a standard library string over a >>>> C-style string when you can. TC++PL 2.3.3, 13.5.2. " >>> >>> Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy; you have been told this >>> before; try paying attention. >>> >> I don't know what you mean by "appealing to authority" because I am not >> appealing to anyone. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority > >> I was simply showing that the terminology I use is also used by >> respected experts. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority > >> >>> 'char*' cannot point to an array of char; 'char*' can only ever point >>> to a single char object (or no object at all): >> >> Perhaps you do know C++ better than Bjarne Stroustrup or Steve Summit, >> perhaps you don't. > > What has Bjarne Stroustrup knowing C++ better than me got to do with > anything? We all make mistakes; we all sometimes write something which is > less formal or less technically accurate than it should be; you certainly > are. > Who are you to say they are technically inaccurate? The C faqs are easily ammended, if SS is technically inaccurate then he would have corrected it by now. BS's site was modified in 2007, I'm sure he has revised this site and would have corrected any technically inaccurate information. I'm sure both these sites have been scrutinised by many programmers and any inaccuracies would be corrected. They don't just throw these pages online without first checking them for technical accuracy. >> >> Whatever the case may be I prefer to think that a pointer that points to >> an array of chars is of type char*. Having said that I also fully >> understand that there can be a pointer type char (*)[n], but I see that >> as a pointer with a different level of indirection that is most commonly >> used as a pointer to a 2d array because it requires two dereferences to >> access the array of chars that it points to. > > 'char(*)[n]' is a pointer to a 1D array not a pointer to a 2D array; the > first dereference evaluates to a reference to the array and the second > dereference evaluates to a reference to the array element. > The C++ standard states that a when a 2d array is converted to a pointer....: "If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointed-to (n ? 1)-dimensional array, which itself is immediately converted into a pointer." The key phrase here is "the pointed-to (n ? 1)-dimensional array". This means the pointed-to (n)-dimensional array is a 2d array because the resulting (n-1)-dimensional array is a 1d array. So your interpretation means that not only are Bjarne Stroustrup and Steve Summit technically inaccurate but the C++ standard is completely incorrect. Im sorry but I do not agree with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 22:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <PamdndHujMzMM3vQnZ2dnUVZ7sCdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #6014 |
On 01/06/2011 22:01, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:eoadnWkpMbsTDXvQnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 01/06/2011 20:10, Paul wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>>> I believe that would be the terminology that is most accepted and >>>>>> most >>>>>> closely >>>>>> matches the language definition. >>>>>> >>>>> Well I draw your attention so a couple of quotes from highly regarded >>>>> experts who think in the same way as me: >>>>> http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html >>>>> "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place >>>>> which holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can >>>>> point almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of >>>>> chars, >>>>> or nowhere [footnote]" >>>>> >>>>> http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html >>>>> "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char. Typically assumed to >>>>> point to a C-style string. Prefer a standard library string over a >>>>> C-style string when you can. TC++PL 2.3.3, 13.5.2. " >>>> >>>> Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy; you have been told this >>>> before; try paying attention. >>>> >>> I don't know what you mean by "appealing to authority" because I am not >>> appealing to anyone. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority >> >>> I was simply showing that the terminology I use is also used by >>> respected experts. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority >> >>> >>>> 'char*' cannot point to an array of char; 'char*' can only ever point >>>> to a single char object (or no object at all): >>> >>> Perhaps you do know C++ better than Bjarne Stroustrup or Steve Summit, >>> perhaps you don't. >> >> What has Bjarne Stroustrup knowing C++ better than me got to do with >> anything? We all make mistakes; we all sometimes write something which >> is less formal or less technically accurate than it should be; you >> certainly are. >> > Who are you to say they are technically inaccurate? Who are you to say they are not technically inaccurate on this particular occasion? > The C faqs are easily ammended, if SS is technically inaccurate then he > would have corrected it by now. > BS's site was modified in 2007, I'm sure he has revised this site and > would have corrected any technically inaccurate information. > > I'm sure both these sites have been scrutinised by many programmers and > any inaccuracies would be corrected. They don't just throw these pages > online without first checking them for technical accuracy. What amazing Internet insights you have. >>> Whatever the case may be I prefer to think that a pointer that points to >>> an array of chars is of type char*. Having said that I also fully >>> understand that there can be a pointer type char (*)[n], but I see that >>> as a pointer with a different level of indirection that is most commonly >>> used as a pointer to a 2d array because it requires two dereferences to >>> access the array of chars that it points to. >> >> 'char(*)[n]' is a pointer to a 1D array not a pointer to a 2D array; >> the first dereference evaluates to a reference to the array and the >> second dereference evaluates to a reference to the array element. >> > The C++ standard states that a when a 2d array is converted to a > pointer....: > "If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of > subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointed-to > (n ? 1)-dimensional array, which itself is immediately converted into a > pointer." > > The key phrase here is "the pointed-to (n ? 1)-dimensional array". This > means the pointed-to (n)-dimensional array is a 2d array because the > resulting (n-1)-dimensional array is a 1d array. You have repeated this citation on multiple occasions to try and refute the same *fact* on multiple occasions; each time the citation is unrelated to the fact; each time you have been wrong. 'char(*)[N]' is a pointer to a 1D array not a pointer to a 2D array and nothing in the Standard contradicts this *fact*. > > So your interpretation means that not only are Bjarne Stroustrup and > Steve Summit technically inaccurate but the C++ standard is completely > incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority > Im sorry but I do not agree with you. If you are comfortable with your state of wrongness then that is your lookout. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 22:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <royFp.33527$UY3.3234@newsfe20.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6018 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:PamdndHujMzMM3vQnZ2dnUVZ7sCdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 22:01, Paul wrote: >> >> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:eoadnWkpMbsTDXvQnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 01/06/2011 20:10, Paul wrote: >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that would be the terminology that is most accepted and >>>>>>> most >>>>>>> closely >>>>>>> matches the language definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Well I draw your attention so a couple of quotes from highly regarded >>>>>> experts who think in the same way as me: >>>>>> http://c-faq.com/aryptr/aryptr2.html >>>>>> "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place >>>>>> which holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer >>>>>> can >>>>>> point almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of >>>>>> chars, >>>>>> or nowhere [footnote]" >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html >>>>>> "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char. Typically assumed to >>>>>> point to a C-style string. Prefer a standard library string over a >>>>>> C-style string when you can. TC++PL 2.3.3, 13.5.2. " >>>>> >>>>> Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy; you have been told this >>>>> before; try paying attention. >>>>> >>>> I don't know what you mean by "appealing to authority" because I am not >>>> appealing to anyone. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority >>> >>>> I was simply showing that the terminology I use is also used by >>>> respected experts. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority >>> >>>> >>>>> 'char*' cannot point to an array of char; 'char*' can only ever point >>>>> to a single char object (or no object at all): >>>> >>>> Perhaps you do know C++ better than Bjarne Stroustrup or Steve Summit, >>>> perhaps you don't. >>> >>> What has Bjarne Stroustrup knowing C++ better than me got to do with >>> anything? We all make mistakes; we all sometimes write something which >>> is less formal or less technically accurate than it should be; you >>> certainly are. >>> >> Who are you to say they are technically inaccurate? > > Who are you to say they are not technically inaccurate on this particular > occasion? I never said they were , I just suggested there was a high probability that they were mor elikely to be more accurate than you. > >> The C faqs are easily ammended, if SS is technically inaccurate then he >> would have corrected it by now. >> BS's site was modified in 2007, I'm sure he has revised this site and >> would have corrected any technically inaccurate information. >> >> I'm sure both these sites have been scrutinised by many programmers and >> any inaccuracies would be corrected. They don't just throw these pages >> online without first checking them for technical accuracy. > > What amazing Internet insights you have. > >>>> Whatever the case may be I prefer to think that a pointer that points >>>> to >>>> an array of chars is of type char*. Having said that I also fully >>>> understand that there can be a pointer type char (*)[n], but I see that >>>> as a pointer with a different level of indirection that is most >>>> commonly >>>> used as a pointer to a 2d array because it requires two dereferences to >>>> access the array of chars that it points to. >>> >>> 'char(*)[n]' is a pointer to a 1D array not a pointer to a 2D array; >>> the first dereference evaluates to a reference to the array and the >>> second dereference evaluates to a reference to the array element. >>> >> The C++ standard states that a when a 2d array is converted to a >> pointer....: >> "If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of >> subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointed-to >> (n ? 1)-dimensional array, which itself is immediately converted into a >> pointer." >> >> The key phrase here is "the pointed-to (n ? 1)-dimensional array". This >> means the pointed-to (n)-dimensional array is a 2d array because the >> resulting (n-1)-dimensional array is a 1d array. > > You have repeated this citation on multiple occasions to try and refute > the same *fact* on multiple occasions; each time the citation is unrelated > to the fact; each time you have been wrong. > > 'char(*)[N]' is a pointer to a 1D array not a pointer to a 2D array and > nothing in the Standard contradicts this *fact*. > So if char(*)[n] is, in your mind, a pointer to a 1d array what is a pointer to a 2d array? It surely cannot be the same type of pointer but I dunno. I presume it must be a pointer of type int(*)[n][n]. Is this correct? >> >> So your interpretation means that not only are Bjarne Stroustrup and >> Steve Summit technically inaccurate but the C++ standard is completely >> incorrect. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority > >> Im sorry but I do not agree with you. > > If you are comfortable with your state of wrongness then that is your > lookout. > I don't see what is wrong with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 09:49 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <94nqfpF12lU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #6024 |
On 06/ 2/11 09:43 AM, Paul wrote: > "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >> >> If you are comfortable with your state of wrongness then that is your >> lookout. >> > I don't see what is wrong with it. There lies the root of the problem. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 23:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j6adnQ8edrlLIXvQnZ2dnUVZ8n2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #6024 |
On 01/06/2011 22:43, Paul wrote: [snip] > So if char(*)[n] is, in your mind, a pointer to a 1d array what is a > pointer to a 2d array? > It surely cannot be the same type of pointer but I dunno. I presume it > must be a pointer of type int(*)[n][n]. Is this correct? 'int(*)[n][n]' is a pointer to a 2D array yes; if it where not the following would not compile: int array[7][42]; // this is a 2D array int (*pointer_to_array)[7][42] = &array; /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web