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 13 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 21 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 16:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <awsFp.36582$%o4.28660@newsfe16.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5966 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:CeqdnUyDbYLSoHvQnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 13:45, Leigh Johnston wrote: >> On 01/06/2011 10:23, Paul wrote: >>> p is not a pointer to a single int if it points to an array of them. >> >> You couldn't be more wrong. 'p' is a pointer of type 'int*'; the type of >> 'p' is fixed and is unrelated to what object (if any) it is pointing to. > > Actually I retract that last statement (it is incorrect); I should have > said: > > The type of 'p' is fixed and it can only point to objects of a related > type or no object at all; It does point to objectS of a related type , it points to integer objects. >in this case the only valid related type is 'int' not 'array of int'. > An array of integers type objects is an array of integer types. An object of array type, is not within the realms of you understanding so no point in even going there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 16:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eYidnY7_tMwixnvQnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5970 |
On 01/06/2011 16:02, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:CeqdnUyDbYLSoHvQnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 01/06/2011 13:45, Leigh Johnston wrote: >>> On 01/06/2011 10:23, Paul wrote: >>>> p is not a pointer to a single int if it points to an array of them. >>> >>> You couldn't be more wrong. 'p' is a pointer of type 'int*'; the type of >>> 'p' is fixed and is unrelated to what object (if any) it is pointing to. >> >> Actually I retract that last statement (it is incorrect); I should >> have said: >> >> The type of 'p' is fixed and it can only point to objects of a related >> type or no object at all; > It does point to objectS of a related type , it points to integer objects. Wrong; a pointer can never point to more than one object; a pointer can only ever point to a single object; a pointer of type 'int*' can only point to a single 'int' object not an array of 'int' objects. > > >> in this case the only valid related type is 'int' not 'array of int'. >> > An array of integers type objects is an array of integer types. That is just plain gibberish. > An object of array type, is not within the realms of you understanding > so no point in even going there. It is obvious to all who is lacking in understanding. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 19:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wTvFp.52049$8A7.22715@newsfe12.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5971 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:eYidnY7_tMwixnvQnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 01/06/2011 16:02, Paul wrote: >> >> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:CeqdnUyDbYLSoHvQnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 01/06/2011 13:45, Leigh Johnston wrote: >>>> On 01/06/2011 10:23, Paul wrote: >>>>> p is not a pointer to a single int if it points to an array of them. >>>> >>>> You couldn't be more wrong. 'p' is a pointer of type 'int*'; the type >>>> of >>>> 'p' is fixed and is unrelated to what object (if any) it is pointing >>>> to. >>> >>> Actually I retract that last statement (it is incorrect); I should >>> have said: >>> >>> The type of 'p' is fixed and it can only point to objects of a related >>> type or no object at all; >> It does point to objectS of a related type , it points to integer >> objects. > > Wrong; a pointer can never point to more than one object; a pointer can > only ever point to a single object; a pointer of type 'int*' can only > point to a single 'int' object not an array of 'int' objects. > No I suggest that its you who is wrong. A pointer is something that references another location. What a pointer points to is what is at the referenced location. If a pointer references a location where an array of objects are stored, then the pointer is said to "point to" the array of objects, not only to one single object. The pointer can only access one object at a time , so one can say specifically which object within the array is pointed to, most commonly the initial element, but this does not mean the pointer does not still primarily point to an array of objects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 20:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <86ednfunyuI0EXvQnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #5988 |
On 01/06/2011 19:52, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:eYidnY7_tMwixnvQnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 01/06/2011 16:02, Paul wrote: >>> >>> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:CeqdnUyDbYLSoHvQnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>> On 01/06/2011 13:45, Leigh Johnston wrote: >>>>> On 01/06/2011 10:23, Paul wrote: >>>>>> p is not a pointer to a single int if it points to an array of them. >>>>> >>>>> You couldn't be more wrong. 'p' is a pointer of type 'int*'; the >>>>> type of >>>>> 'p' is fixed and is unrelated to what object (if any) it is >>>>> pointing to. >>>> >>>> Actually I retract that last statement (it is incorrect); I should >>>> have said: >>>> >>>> The type of 'p' is fixed and it can only point to objects of a related >>>> type or no object at all; >>> It does point to objectS of a related type , it points to integer >>> objects. >> >> Wrong; a pointer can never point to more than one object; a pointer >> can only ever point to a single object; a pointer of type 'int*' can >> only point to a single 'int' object not an array of 'int' objects. >> > No I suggest that its you who is wrong. > > A pointer is something that references another location. What a pointer > points to is what is at the referenced location. > If a pointer references a location where an array of objects are stored, > then the pointer is said to "point to" the array of objects, not only to > one single object. The pointer can only access one object at a time , so > one can say specifically which object within the array is pointed to, > most commonly the initial element, but this does not mean the pointer > does not still primarily point to an array of objects. Is there anything in the C++ Standard that supports your claim? Thought not. The C++ Standard trumps your dodgy claims I'm afraid. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 09:16 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011060109161295883-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #5952 |
On 2011-05-31 23:23:15 -1000, Paul said: > If a pointer points-to the first element of an array, it points to the array. > An int* can be null, point to an int or point to an array of ints. No, an int* cannot point to an array of ints. They have different types. An int* points to an int. That int can be an element of an array (or even one past the end of an array). -- Pete Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cTwFp.28871$A05.15882@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #5991 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011060109161295883-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-05-31 23:23:15 -1000, Paul said: > >> If a pointer points-to the first element of an array, it points to the >> array. >> An int* can be null, point to an int or point to an array of ints. > > No, an int* cannot point to an array of ints. They have different types. > An int* points to an int. That int can be an element of an array (or even > one past the end of an array). > > -- An array of integer objects is a sequence of objects of int type. A pointer that points to them is of type int*. Where do you see the difference in type, other than one is a pointer type and the other not? For example: int* p = new int[100]; p[56]; p[32]; The pointer p points to the array of integer objects. An index(or offset) is added to the pointer to access different parts of the array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 10:09 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011060110090311350-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #5999 |
On 2011-06-01 10:00:02 -1000, Paul said: > "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > news:2011060109161295883-pete@versatilecodingcom... >> On 2011-05-31 23:23:15 -1000, Paul said: >> >>> If a pointer points-to the first element of an array, it points to the array. >>> An int* can be null, point to an int or point to an array of ints. >> >> No, an int* cannot point to an array of ints. They have different >> types. An int* points to an int. That int can be an element of an array >> (or even one past the end of an array). >> >> -- > > An array of integer objects is a sequence of objects of int type. A > pointer that points to them is of type int*. > Where do you see the difference in type, other than one is a pointer > type and the other not? int *ip; // pointer to int int arr[10]; // array of int These are not the same type. Look it up. > > For example: > int* p = new int[100]; Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, and stores the result in p. int i = 3.1; Creates an object of type double, converts it to type int, and stores the result in i. Being able to convert one type into another does not make the types the same. -- Pete Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 22:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2dyFp.31748$Tw4.2327@newsfe26.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6004 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011060110090311350-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-06-01 10:00:02 -1000, Paul said: > >> "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message >> news:2011060109161295883-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>> On 2011-05-31 23:23:15 -1000, Paul said: >>> >>>> If a pointer points-to the first element of an array, it points to the >>>> array. >>>> An int* can be null, point to an int or point to an array of ints. >>> >>> No, an int* cannot point to an array of ints. They have different types. >>> An int* points to an int. That int can be an element of an array (or >>> even one past the end of an array). >>> >>> -- >> >> An array of integer objects is a sequence of objects of int type. A >> pointer that points to them is of type int*. >> Where do you see the difference in type, other than one is a pointer type >> and the other not? > > int *ip; // pointer to int > int arr[10]; // array of int > > These are not the same type. Look it up. No obviously not but neither is: int x; int* p =&x; These two are not the same type either but p points to x. > >> >> For example: >> int* p = new int[100]; > > Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, and > stores the result in p. Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its must be a temporary. Is it possible to get hold of this array type object( object of array type) by this syntax: int (*p)[100] = (int (*)[100])new int[100]; Does this now mean that we have access to the array type object( object of array type? Is it the case that an array type object is created , then converted to an int*, then cast to a pointer to an array type object? Do you think an object of array type is the same as an array type object? Just to save me from clarifying my meaning(in brackets) all the time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 11:58 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <2011060111582146590-pete@versatilecodingcom> |
| In reply to | #6021 |
On 2011-06-01 11:31:35 -1000, Paul said: > "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > news:2011060110090311350-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>> >>> For example: >>> int* p = new int[100]; >> >> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, >> and stores the result in p. > > Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its > must be a temporary. No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage duration. -- Pete Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 23:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <EXyFp.28880$A05.9730@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6029 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011060111582146590-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-06-01 11:31:35 -1000, Paul said: > >> "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message >> news:2011060110090311350-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> int* p = new int[100]; >>> >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, >>> and stores the result in p. >> >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its >> must be a temporary. > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage duration. > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't see what this object is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab99e44f-6dc1-4a5e-9e61-da9ce88fe0d6@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6036 |
On Jun 1, 3:21 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Pete Becker" <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > > news:2011060111582146590-pete@versatilecodingcom... > > > On 2011-06-01 11:31:35 -1000, Paul said: > > >> "Pete Becker" <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > >>news:2011060110090311350-pete@versatilecodingcom... > > >>>> For example: > >>>> int* p = new int[100]; > > >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, > >>> and stores the result in p. > > >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its > >> must be a temporary. > > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage duration. > > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't see > what this object is. You access it via the pointer to its first element, which was just handed to you: p[0] accesses the first element of the array object, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 00:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <udAFp.14946$8_2.12630@newsfe17.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6051 |
"crisgoogle" <crisd@telus.net> wrote in message news:ab99e44f-6dc1-4a5e-9e61-da9ce88fe0d6@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Jun 1, 3:21 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Pete Becker" <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > > news:2011060111582146590-pete@versatilecodingcom... > > > On 2011-06-01 11:31:35 -1000, Paul said: > > >> "Pete Becker" <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > >>news:2011060110090311350-pete@versatilecodingcom... > > >>>> For example: > >>>> int* p = new int[100]; > > >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, > >>> and stores the result in p. > > >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its > >> must be a temporary. > > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage duration. > > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't see > what this object is. --You access it via the pointer to its first element, which was just --handed to you: --p[0] accesses the first element of the array object, etc. Yes this is what I think too, but if that pointer points to only the sub objects and not the array type object, how do we access the array type object ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ccfd0b6-7fa7-4f3c-9dbd-62f23bacfb24@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6057 |
On Jun 1, 4:48 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "crisgoogle" <cr...@telus.net> wrote in message > > news:ab99e44f-6dc1-4a5e-9e61-da9ce88fe0d6@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 1, 3:21 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Pete Becker" <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > > >news:2011060111582146590-pete@versatilecodingcom... > > > > On 2011-06-01 11:31:35 -1000, Paul said: > > > >> "Pete Becker" <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > > >>news:2011060110090311350-pete@versatilecodingcom... > > > >>>> For example: > > >>>> int* p = new int[100]; > > > >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, > > >>> and stores the result in p. > > > >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its > > >> must be a temporary. > > > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage duration. > > > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't see > > what this object is. > > --You access it via the pointer to its first element, which was just > --handed to you: > > --p[0] accesses the first element of the array object, etc. > > Yes this is what I think too, but if that pointer points to only the sub > objects and not the array type object, how do we access the array type > object ? What _exactly_ do you mean by "access the array type object"? All we have in the above is an (anonymous) array, and a pointer to its first element. There is no identifier for the array as a whole. There is no "array type object" independent of the array-of-int-subobjects itself. So the only way to "access the array" is element-by-element, using pointers to individual elements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 19:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <S3RFp.31191$ue1.13342@newsfe28.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6087 |
"crisgoogle" <crisd@telus.net> wrote in message news:2ccfd0b6-7fa7-4f3c-9dbd-62f23bacfb24@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com... On Jun 1, 4:48 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>>> For example: > > >>>> int* p = new int[100]; > > > >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type > > >>> int*, > > >>> and stores the result in p. > > > >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its > > >> must be a temporary. > > > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage > > > duration. > > > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't see > > what this object is. > > --You access it via the pointer to its first element, which was just > --handed to you: > > --p[0] accesses the first element of the array object, etc. > > Yes this is what I think too, but if that pointer points to only the sub > objects and not the array type object, how do we access the array type > object ? -- What _exactly_ do you mean by "access the array type object"? Read it from memory. --All we have in the above is an (anonymous) array, and a pointer to its --first element. There is no identifier for the array as a whole. There --is no "array type object" independent of the array-of-int-subobjects --itself. Well there either is or there isn't an onject of array type. Your initial response was to my question asking how to access this object of array-type. I can't decide if you think there si an object of array type or not. --So the only way to "access the array" is element-by-element, using --pointers to individual elements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc67c987-c876-4725-bed9-4f47e3c36be0@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6089 |
On Jun 2, 11:58 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "crisgoogle" <cr...@telus.net> wrote in message > > news:2ccfd0b6-7fa7-4f3c-9dbd-62f23bacfb24@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 1, 4:48 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> For example: > > > >>>> int* p = new int[100]; > > > > >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type > > > >>> int*, > > > >>> and stores the result in p. > > > > >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its > > > >> must be a temporary. > > > > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage > > > > duration. > > > > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't see > > > what this object is. > > > --You access it via the pointer to its first element, which was just > > --handed to you: > > > --p[0] accesses the first element of the array object, etc. > > > Yes this is what I think too, but if that pointer points to only the sub > > objects and not the array type object, how do we access the array type > > object ? > > -- What _exactly_ do you mean by "access the array type object"? > > Read it from memory. This hardly describes "exactly" what you mean: Read _what_ from memory? How is "access the array type object" different from reading individual array elements via pointers to those elements? IOW, how does my answer "p[0] accesses the first element of the array object" NOT tell you how to "access the array type object"? > --All we have in the above is an (anonymous) array, and a pointer to its > --first element. There is no identifier for the array as a whole. There > --is no "array type object" independent of the array-of-int-subobjects > --itself. > > Well there either is or there isn't an onject of array type. > Your initial response was to my question asking how to access this object of > array-type. > I can't decide if you think there si an object of array type or not. Of course there is. The object of array type is exactly the group of 100 int subobjects. Let me clarify. The _is_ an array; it is an object of array type. There is _not_ an "array type object" that is _distinct_ from this object of array type -- as least, as best I can tell, because I've never seen a definition from you saying what you mean by "array type object" that would allow this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 01:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <AJVFp.29191$A05.3049@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6095 |
"crisgoogle" <crisd@telus.net> wrote in message news:dc67c987-c876-4725-bed9-4f47e3c36be0@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Jun 2, 11:58 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "crisgoogle" <cr...@telus.net> wrote in message > > > >>>> For example: > > > >>>> int* p = new int[100]; > > > > >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type > > > >>> int*, > > > >>> and stores the result in p. > > > > >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but > > > >> its > > > >> must be a temporary. > > > > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage > > > > duration. > > > > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't > > > see > > > what this object is. > > > --You access it via the pointer to its first element, which was just > > --handed to you: > > > --p[0] accesses the first element of the array object, etc. > > > Yes this is what I think too, but if that pointer points to only the sub > > objects and not the array type object, how do we access the array type > > object ? > > -- What _exactly_ do you mean by "access the array type object"? > > Read it from memory. --This hardly describes "exactly" what you mean: --Read _what_ from memory? How is "access the array type object" --different from reading individual array elements via pointers to those --elements? IOW, how does my answer "p[0] accesses the first element --of the array object" NOT tell you how to "access the array type --object"? Read the object of array type from memory. Does a single object of array type exist in memory ? If so how do we access this single object, as a whole. > --All we have in the above is an (anonymous) array, and a pointer to its > --first element. There is no identifier for the array as a whole. There > --is no "array type object" independent of the array-of-int-subobjects > --itself. > > Well there either is or there isn't an onject of array type. > Your initial response was to my question asking how to access this object > of > array-type. > I can't decide if you think there si an object of array type or not. --Of course there is. The object of array type is exactly the group --of 100 int subobjects. --Let me clarify. The _is_ an array; it is an object of array type. --There is _not_ an "array type object" that is _distinct_ from this --object of array type -- as least, as best I can tell, because I've --never seen a definition from you saying what you mean by --"array type object" that would allow this. As far as I can see there is no difference between the terms "array type object" and "object of array type". If you see a difference between those terms please enlighten me because an "object of T type" means the same as a "T type object" , AFAICT. So you are saying an array is an object in its own right, as well as being an array of objects. If so I can understand that but I cannot understand how we access this object as a whole. Is it a non accessable object? Or, with dynamic arrays, does it even exist? This object obviously has some differences from the array of objects, most obviously the difference in pluralisation, ie: Array of objects.(plural objects) An array type object. (singular object) So the plural objects are accessable and the sigular object is not , is it just a concept of all the objects grouped together as one? Its not an object that has been declared or anything, its non modifiable, its not accessable, a there are different opinions about whether or not it even exists. Some people say that there is no array object, with dynamic arrays, and that an array object is 'arr' in the following: int arr[55]; This is an array type object because when you examine it with typeid its type is int[55]. This makes sense because this object is non modifiable. Its also not accessable, as an object in its own right, because any attempt to access it yields a pointer to its first element. That means that your explanation of an array being the collective for all the elements in memory does not make sense because your explanation of an array object would also exist with a dynamic array, would it not? So you ask what is my definition of an array type object. Well I think and array type object is an object in its own right , that represents the memory as a whole sequence of objects. This object is something that the compiler creates as a pointer to the first element with some additional info that allows the size and typeinfo to be carried with it. I think that in memory no objects exist other than the sequence of element objects. However given this C++ type mechanism that allows an identifier to represent this array as a whole, we can say that the sequence of objects is one object as a whole. This is the only way I can see how it works with no conflicting defintions. The only argument I have seen against this is the "an array is not a pointer" argument, which is nonsense because I am not saying an array is a pointer. Many people give negative comments such as its not this or not that but they do not produce a reasonable defintion of their own that fits all the rules , such as I have done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-02 18:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7a3778a-5725-47fa-b86b-3c6ec3908d3c@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6106 |
On Jun 2, 5:16 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "crisgoogle" <cr...@telus.net> wrote in message > > news:dc67c987-c876-4725-bed9-4f47e3c36be0@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 11:58 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > "crisgoogle" <cr...@telus.net> wrote in message > > > > >>>> For example: > > > > >>>> int* p = new int[100]; > > > > > >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type > > > > >>> int*, > > > > >>> and stores the result in p. > > > > > >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but > > > > >> its > > > > >> must be a temporary. > > > > > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage > > > > > duration. > > > > > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't > > > > see > > > > what this object is. > > > > --You access it via the pointer to its first element, which was just > > > --handed to you: > > > > --p[0] accesses the first element of the array object, etc. > > > > Yes this is what I think too, but if that pointer points to only the sub > > > objects and not the array type object, how do we access the array type > > > object ? > > > -- What _exactly_ do you mean by "access the array type object"? > > > Read it from memory. > > --This hardly describes "exactly" what you mean: > --Read _what_ from memory? How is "access the array type object" > --different from reading individual array elements via pointers to those > --elements? IOW, how does my answer "p[0] accesses the first element > --of the array object" NOT tell you how to "access the array type > --object"? > > Read the object of array type from memory. > Does a single object of array type exist in memory ? If so how do we access > this single object, as a whole. Yes, a single object of array type exists in memory. We _cannot_ access this single object as a whole. It's as simple as that. So what? That's a quirk of the language. > > --All we have in the above is an (anonymous) array, and a pointer to its > > --first element. There is no identifier for the array as a whole. There > > --is no "array type object" independent of the array-of-int-subobjects > > --itself. > > > Well there either is or there isn't an onject of array type. > > Your initial response was to my question asking how to access this object > > of > > array-type. > > I can't decide if you think there si an object of array type or not. > > --Of course there is. The object of array type is exactly the group > --of 100 int subobjects. > > --Let me clarify. The _is_ an array; it is an object of array type. > > --There is _not_ an "array type object" that is _distinct_ from this > --object of array type -- as least, as best I can tell, because I've > --never seen a definition from you saying what you mean by > --"array type object" that would allow this. > > As far as I can see there is no difference between the terms "array type > object" and "object of array type". > If you see a difference between those terms please enlighten me because an > "object of T type" means the same as a "T type object" , AFAICT. It's not a matter of seeing a difference, it's a matter of defining the terms. If you stipulate that when you say "array type object" you mean exactly the same thing as "object of array type", then I'm quite happy to agree that, by definition, there _is_ no difference, so I'll _see_ no difference =) > So you are saying an array is an object in its own right, as well as being > an array of objects. If so I can understand that but I cannot understand how > we access this object as a whole. Yes, that's right. Being very loose with terminology, _all_ variables, data, what-have-you, are objects. Anything to which you can write, or from which you can read, a value, is an object. Anything that takes up measureable memory space is an object. Objects can have subobjects. So the array is a single object, made up of subobjects. But we cannot access the array object as a whole, if by "access" you mean read the whole thing as a lump. It just so happens that structs are assignable. But if the language didn't support struct assignment, would you say that structs weren't objects? > Is it a non accessable object? Or, with dynamic arrays, does it even exist? Yes, it exists. Yes it can be accessed on an element-by-element basis, just not as one big lump. > This object obviously has some differences from the array of objects, most > obviously the difference in pluralisation, ie: > Array of objects.(plural objects) > An array type object. (singular object) Well, yes, they are different objects though not disjoint. The subobjects are fully contained within the array object. And I don't get what you're saying about the "pluralisation". Yes, there is a single array object containing multiple subobjects. An int has multiple bits. Does this mean that the int is different than it's component bits? That's either trivially true or trivially false depending on how you interpret it, but either way it's trivial. > So the plural objects are accessable and the sigular object is not , is it > just a concept of all the objects grouped together as one? > Its not an object that has been declared or anything, its non modifiable, > its not accessable, a there are different opinions about whether or not it > even exists. > > Some people say that there is no array object, with dynamic arrays, and that > an array object is 'arr' in the following: > int arr[55]; > This is an array type object because when you examine it with typeid its > type is int[55]. > This makes sense because this object is non modifiable. Its also not > accessable, as an object in its own right, because any attempt to access it > yields a pointer to its first element. > That means that your explanation of an array being the collective for all > the elements in memory does not make sense because your explanation of an > array object would also exist with a dynamic array, would it not? No, the "problem" with dynamic arrays is that there is no identifier for the array as a whole. It is anonymous. _All_ we have is a pointer to its first element. Since we don't have a name for it, we don't have a way of identifying the array-as-a-whole to find its typeid, or size, for that matter. Again, this is really just a quirk of the language. > So you ask what is my definition of an array type object. Well I think and > array type object is an object in its own right Okay, good. > , that represents the memory > as a whole sequence of objects. I'm not sure what you mean by "represents the memory". I say that the array object simply _is_ that chunk of memory. There may or may not be a name identifying that chunk of memory as a whole. There is such a name for non-dynamic arrays, there is not for dynamics arrays. (Of course, the name may not be visible in all scopes, but the point is, it exists _somewhere_ in the case of non-dynamic arrays.) > This object is something that the compiler creates as a pointer to the first > element with some additional info that allows the size and typeinfo to be > carried with it. You say that the compiler "creates [this array object] as a pointer". I don't agree, but leave it for a moment. [*] > I think that in memory no objects exist other than the sequence of element > objects. > However given this C++ type mechanism that allows an identifier to > represent this array as a whole, we can say that the sequence of objects is > one object as a whole. > This is the only way I can see how it works with no conflicting defintions. > The only argument I have seen against this is the "an array is not a > pointer" argument, which is nonsense because I am not saying an array is a > pointer. [*] But you just said that the array object is "[created] as a pointer". So it's created as a pointer, but isn't a pointer? I agree that it isn't a pointer, but then what do you mean that it's created "as a pointer".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PaulR <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-03 04:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <71622500-1d64-44b2-bc0a-aa19840ecd40@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6111 |
On Jun 3, 2:51 am, crisgoogle <cr...@telus.net> wrote: <snip> > > Yes, a single object of array type exists in memory. > > We _cannot_ access this single object as a whole. It's as simple as > that. > > So what? That's a quirk of the language. > And this is what you'd say to those who think no array object exsits with the expression: int* p = new int[55]; They say this is just a pointer to a sequence of integer objects, no array object is created. This may be a valid point because according to the C++ standard an object of array type is non modifiable and your definition of an array object is very modifiable. > > > --All we have in the above is an (anonymous) array, and a pointer to its > > > --first element. There is no identifier for the array as a whole. There > > > --is no "array type object" independent of the array-of-int-subobjects > > > --itself. > > > > Well there either is or there isn't an onject of array type. > > > Your initial response was to my question asking how to access this object > > > of > > > array-type. > > > I can't decide if you think there si an object of array type or not. > > > --Of course there is. The object of array type is exactly the group > > --of 100 int subobjects. > > > --Let me clarify. The _is_ an array; it is an object of array type. > > > --There is _not_ an "array type object" that is _distinct_ from this > > --object of array type -- as least, as best I can tell, because I've > > --never seen a definition from you saying what you mean by > > --"array type object" that would allow this. > > > As far as I can see there is no difference between the terms "array type > > object" and "object of array type". > > If you see a difference between those terms please enlighten me because an > > "object of T type" means the same as a "T type object" , AFAICT. > > It's not a matter of seeing a difference, it's a matter of defining > the terms. > If you stipulate that when you say "array type object" you mean > exactly > the same thing as "object of array type", then I'm quite happy to > agree > that, by definition, there _is_ no difference, so I'll _see_ no > difference =) > > > So you are saying an array is an object in its own right, as well as being > > an array of objects. If so I can understand that but I cannot understand how > > we access this object as a whole. > > Yes, that's right. Being very loose with terminology, _all_ variables, > data, what-have-you, are objects. Anything to which you can write, or > from which you can read, a value, is an object. Anything that takes up > measureable memory space is an object. Objects can have subobjects. > So the array is a single object, made up of subobjects. > > But we cannot access the array object as a whole, if by "access" you > mean > read the whole thing as a lump. > > It just so happens that structs are assignable. But if the language > didn't > support struct assignment, would you say that structs weren't objects? This seems a bit like a condraction. You say that loosely spkeaing an object is a region of memory from which you can either read or write a value. But then you say an array object is a region of memory that you cannot read or write to, but its the same region of memory as the integer objects that can be read or written to. The same object(region of memory) cannot be accessable yet also inaccessable (accessable meaning either readable, writeable or both). A struct is a defintion of a type, you cannot assign to a struct but you can assign to an object of struct type. I think this is what you mean and the term "assign to a struct". Its like saying "assign to a class" huh this is not right, is it? > > > Is it a non accessable object? Or, with dynamic arrays, does it even exist? > > Yes, it exists. Yes it can be accessed on an element-by-element basis, > just not as one big lump. > > > This object obviously has some differences from the array of objects, most > > obviously the difference in pluralisation, ie: > > Array of objects.(plural objects) > > An array type object. (singular object) > > Well, yes, they are different objects though not disjoint. The > subobjects > are fully contained within the array object. They could be seen as the same or different depending on how you look at it, for example: The array is the same as the integer objects. The array is different from a single integer object. This is because an array can be seen as a sequence of integer objects or as one single object that contains sub objects. > > And I don't get what you're saying about > the "pluralisation". Yes, there is a single array object containing > multiple subobjects. An int has multiple bits. Does this mean that the > int is different than it's component bits? That's either trivially > true > or trivially false depending on how you interpret it, but either way > it's trivial. As I said above the pluralisation is concerned with how you think of an array. Is it objects or an object. An array can be seen in both ways. > > > So the plural objects are accessable and the sigular object is not , is it > > just a concept of all the objects grouped together as one? > > Its not an object that has been declared or anything, its non modifiable, > > its not accessable, a there are different opinions about whether or not it > > even exists. > > > Some people say that there is no array object, with dynamic arrays, and that > > an array object is 'arr' in the following: > > int arr[55]; > > This is an array type object because when you examine it with typeid its > > type is int[55]. > > This makes sense because this object is non modifiable. Its also not > > accessable, as an object in its own right, because any attempt to access it > > yields a pointer to its first element. > > That means that your explanation of an array being the collective for all > > the elements in memory does not make sense because your explanation of an > > array object would also exist with a dynamic array, would it not? > > No, the "problem" with dynamic arrays is that there is no identifier > for the > array as a whole. It is anonymous. _All_ we have is a pointer to its > first > element. Since we don't have a name for it, we don't have a way of > identifying > the array-as-a-whole to find its typeid, or size, for that matter. > Again, > this is really just a quirk of the language. What about this: int (*p)[16] = (int (*)[16])new int[16]; cout<< sizeof(*p); cout<< typeid(*p).name(); Does *p give us access to the array object? > > > So you ask what is my definition of an array type object. Well I think and > > array type object is an object in its own right > > Okay, good. > > > , that represents the memory > > as a whole sequence of objects. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "represents the memory". I say that the > array > object simply _is_ that chunk of memory. There may or may not be a > name > identifying that chunk of memory as a whole. There is such a name for > non-dynamic arrays, there is not for dynamics arrays. (Of course, the > name > may not be visible in all scopes, but the point is, it exists > _somewhere_ > in the case of non-dynamic arrays.) A representaton of something is similar to a vector object representing the array in memory. For example: vector<int> v(16); This creates memory for 16 int objects, and that memory is represtented by the object 'v'. The object 'v' is not the same as the 16 integer objects that it represents. This is *similar* to what i mean with an array object representing an array. > > > This object is something that the compiler creates as a pointer to the first > > element with some additional info that allows the size and typeinfo to be > > carried with it. > > You say that the compiler "creates [this array object] as a pointer". > I don't > agree, but leave it for a moment. [*] No I didn't say that at all. I described a mechanism for implementing an array object based upon a pointer with addition type info. > > > I think that in memory no objects exist other than the sequence of element > > objects. > > However given this C++ type mechanism that allows an identifier to > > represent this array as a whole, we can say that the sequence of objects is > > one object as a whole. > > This is the only way I can see how it works with no conflicting defintions. > > The only argument I have seen against this is the "an array is not a > > pointer" argument, which is nonsense because I am not saying an array is a > > pointer. > > [*] But you just said that the array object is "[created] as a > pointer". So it's > created as a pointer, but isn't a pointer? I agree that it isn't a > pointer, but > then what do you mean that it's created "as a pointer". I was describing a mechanism a compiler could implement to create an array object. Going back to a vector object. It will have some allocator that references the memory location where its elements are stored but this allocater will eventuall boil down to a pointer somewhere along the lines. I'm not saying that a vector is a pointer , I am explaining how it may be implemented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 23:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IYyFp.24890$Wy2.21162@newsfe23.ams2> |
| In reply to | #6029 |
"Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message news:2011060111582146590-pete@versatilecodingcom... > On 2011-06-01 11:31:35 -1000, Paul said: > >> "Pete Becker" <pete@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message >> news:2011060110090311350-pete@versatilecodingcom... >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> int* p = new int[100]; >>> >>> Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, >>> and stores the result in p. >> >> Ok this is interesting, so an object of array type is created but its >> must be a temporary. > > No, it's not a temporary. It's an object with dynamic storage duration. > Can you please give an example of how to access this object, I don't see what this object is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-01 14:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02b44b26-694e-4be6-9ebd-bbc0a85486fd@o10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6004 |
On Jun 1, 1:09 pm, Pete Becker <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote: > On 2011-06-01 10:00:02 -1000, Paul said: > > > > > > > > > > > "Pete Becker" <p...@versatilecoding.com> wrote in message > >news:2011060109161295883-pete@versatilecodingcom... > >> On 2011-05-31 23:23:15 -1000, Paul said: > > >>> If a pointer points-to the first element of an array, it points to the array. > >>> An int* can be null, point to an int or point to an array of ints. > > >> No, an int* cannot point to an array of ints. They have different > >> types. An int* points to an int. That int can be an element of an array > >> (or even one past the end of an array). > > >> -- > > > An array of integer objects is a sequence of objects of int type. A > > pointer that points to them is of type int*. > > Where do you see the difference in type, other than one is a pointer > > type and the other not? > > int *ip; // pointer to int > int arr[10]; // array of int > > These are not the same type. Look it up. > > > > > For example: > > int* p = new int[100]; > > Creates an object of type array of 100 int, converts it to type int*, > and stores the result in p. > > int i = 3.1; > > Creates an object of type double, converts it to type int, and stores > the result in i. > > Being able to convert one type into another does not make the types the same. Technically, the "type conversion", if there is one, happens inside new int[100]. The type of the expression "new int[100]" is "int*". It is not "int[100]". Thus there is no conversion in "int* p = new int[100]". Still, I appreciate your intent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web