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 2 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 21 Next page →
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 09:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4d9d6b87$0$6773$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #3242 |
Am 07.04.2011 00:51, schrieb Paul: > An array is defined at allocation, not by a pointer that points to it. > Actually, this is the core point of your view, not that "int* can point to an int or an array" - that's just what follows. You do know about pointer types (at least by now), that's not the problem. It's just that many of those who still argue with you fail to see that they're arguing about the wrong thing. They are trying to teach you something that you already know. But some have already tried to tell you that "points to" and "is a pointer to" are not the same, and they also failed. And that's just because you're a stone deaf: http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_77.php Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 12:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniprt2j.kbq.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3242 |
On 2011-04-06, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message > news:slrnippgqs.2q59.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... [snip] >>> pa1i was declared as a pointer to a 2d array with: >>> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = a2i; >> >> In that declaration pa1i is declared as a pointer to a 1-dimensional >> array. Here is an example from section 8.1 (Type Names) of the C++ >> standard. >> >> int // int i >> int * // int *pi >> int *[3] // int *p[3] >> int (*)[3] // int (*p3i)[3] >> int *() // int *f() >> int (*)(double) // int (*pf)(double) >> >> name respectively the types "int," "pointer to int," "array of 3 >> pointers to int," "pointer to array of 3 int," "function of (no >> parameters) returning pointer to int," and "pointer to a function >> of (double) returning int. > Thats the pointer-types, not what it points to. > If you interpret this as saying pa1i does not point to a 2d array then you > have some serious intellectual problems. In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the object or function to which the expression points. If the type of the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T. [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1.] I don't have any serious intellectual problems. I am using the term "points to" with the meaning it has in C++. The meaning of the term may be different in other contexts, but using another meaning when discussing C++ may lead to errors. >> According to the C++ standard, "int (*p3i)[3]" declares a "pointer >> to an array of 3 int". That array has one dimension. > No it doesn't the standard clearly says that is a TYPE. The standard does > not define that it points to a 1d array. The standard actually implies that > type points to a 2d array, in the section about pointers to arrays.. See the above quote from section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard about the unary * operator, which contains: "If the type of the expression is a pointer to T, the type of the result is T." A pointer to a 1d array points to a 1d array. If a pointer to a 1d array could point to a 2d array, the statement int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = &a2i; would be allowed, but it isn't. Exactly where (section and paragraph) does the standard state that a pointer to a 1d array can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point to a 1d element of a 2d array? >>> Dereferencing pa1i returns a 1d array, which is fine if n==2 because >>> (n-1) >>>== 1 >>> If you consider it to be 1d array then n==1, and (n-1) !=1. >>> >>> std::cout << typeid(*pa1i).name ; >>> outputs int[5]. There is no implicit conversion to pointer unless it's >>> further dereferenced i.e: pali[0][0]. >> >> There is no implicit conversion in a typeid expression. According >> to paragraph 3 of section 5.2.8 (Type identification) of the C++ >> standard: >> >> When typeid is applied to an expression other than an lvalue of >> a polymorphic class type, the result refers to a type_info object >> representing the static type of the expression. Lvalue-to-rvalue >> (4.1), array-to-pointer (4.2), and function-to-pointer (4.3) >> conversions are not applied to the expression. If the type of >> the expression is a class type, the class shall be >> completely-defined. The expression is not evaluated. >> >> The output "int[5]" demonstrates that pali is a pointer to a 1-dimensional >> array. In a context where the expression *pa1i is evaluated, the >> resulting >> 1-dimensional array undergoes array-to-pointer conversion, resulting in a >> pointer to int. > The output demonstrates its an array , not a pointer. > The type int[5] is not a pointer. As I said this is not implicitly converted > to a pointer until its further dereferenced. And when it is converted to a > pointer it will be pointer-type: int*, not int (*)[5]. That's right, *pai1i is an array. The value of "typeid(pa1i).name()" would indicate that pa1i is a pointer to int[5] (the value returned by type_info::name() is implementation defined). The type int[5] is not a pointer type. However, when used in a context where array-to-pointer conversion is applied, a value of type int[5] is implicitly converted to a pointer to int. [snip] > It is initialised to point to a 2d array, with: > int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = a2i; > > a2i is a 2d array , not a 1d array. > An array is defined at allocation, not by a pointer that points to it. Although a2i is a 2d array, when used in the initialization expression array-to-pointer conversion is applied to it, and the result is a pointer to the 1d array that is the first element of a2i. The variable pa1i (a pointer to a 1d array) is initialized to that pointer to a 1d array result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 21:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5ipnp.3078$Ir.376@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3282 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniprt2j.kbq.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-04-06, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >> news:slrnippgqs.2q59.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > [snip] >>>> pa1i was declared as a pointer to a 2d array with: >>>> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = a2i; >>> >>> In that declaration pa1i is declared as a pointer to a 1-dimensional >>> array. Here is an example from section 8.1 (Type Names) of the C++ >>> standard. >>> >>> int // int i >>> int * // int *pi >>> int *[3] // int *p[3] >>> int (*)[3] // int (*p3i)[3] >>> int *() // int *f() >>> int (*)(double) // int (*pf)(double) >>> >>> name respectively the types "int," "pointer to int," "array of 3 >>> pointers to int," "pointer to array of 3 int," "function of (no >>> parameters) returning pointer to int," and "pointer to a function >>> of (double) returning int. >> Thats the pointer-types, not what it points to. >> If you interpret this as saying pa1i does not point to a 2d array then >> you >> have some serious intellectual problems. > > In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here > is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. 1.7 The C++ Object Model states: "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created. Some objects are polymorphic". The pointer type of a pointer that points to an object in C++ can be a void* or another type of pointer that is not the same type as the object. You are misinterpreting the C++ standards. > > The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which > it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer > to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the > object or function to which the expression points. If the type of > the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T. > [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can > be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited > ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must > not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1.] > This is a paragraph that explains the unary operator *. It explains how dereferencing works, not what a pointer can or cannot point to. > I don't have any serious intellectual problems. I am using the term > "points to" with the meaning it has in C++. The meaning of the term > may be different in other contexts, but using another meaning when > discussing C++ may lead to errors. "Points to" is a term that quite clearly needs no definition in the C++ standard. The C++ standard state the following; 4.10 Pointer conversions: "An rvalue of type "pointer to cv T," where T is an object type, can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to cv void." The result of converting a "pointer to cv T" to a "pointer to cv void" points to the start of the storage location where the object of type T resides, as if the object is a most derived object (1.7) of type T (that is, not a base class subobject)." As you can see with a pointer to an object, the pointer actually points to the start of the objects storage location. So do you think a pointer to an object doesn't actually point to an object? > >>> According to the C++ standard, "int (*p3i)[3]" declares a "pointer >>> to an array of 3 int". Its TYPE is pointer to array. What it points to can be null, or almost anything. You are obviously confusing its type with what it points to. > That array has one dimension. >> No it doesn't the standard clearly says that is a TYPE. The standard does >> not define that it points to a 1d array. The standard actually implies >> that >> type points to a 2d array, in the section about pointers to arrays.. > > See the above quote from section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard about the > unary * operator, which contains: "If the type of the expression is > a pointer to T, the type of the result is T." A pointer to a 1d > array points to a 1d array. If a pointer to a 1d array could point > to a 2d array, the statement The above is describing the result of dereferencing a pointer of type T. This does not define what a pointer points to , a pointer can be null and point to nothing. > > int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = &a2i; > > would be allowed, but it isn't. > > Exactly where (section and paragraph) does the standard state that a > pointer to a 1d array can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point > to a 1d element of a 2d array? > This is another example of your bad coding, you dont take the address of an array to get a pointer to it. >>>> Dereferencing pa1i returns a 1d array, which is fine if n==2 because >>>> (n-1) >>>>== 1 >>>> If you consider it to be 1d array then n==1, and (n-1) !=1. >>>> >>>> std::cout << typeid(*pa1i).name ; >>>> outputs int[5]. There is no implicit conversion to pointer unless it's >>>> further dereferenced i.e: pali[0][0]. >>> >>> There is no implicit conversion in a typeid expression. According >>> to paragraph 3 of section 5.2.8 (Type identification) of the C++ >>> standard: >>> >>> When typeid is applied to an expression other than an lvalue of >>> a polymorphic class type, the result refers to a type_info object >>> representing the static type of the expression. Lvalue-to-rvalue >>> (4.1), array-to-pointer (4.2), and function-to-pointer (4.3) >>> conversions are not applied to the expression. If the type of >>> the expression is a class type, the class shall be >>> completely-defined. The expression is not evaluated. >>> >>> The output "int[5]" demonstrates that pali is a pointer to a >>> 1-dimensional >>> array. In a context where the expression *pa1i is evaluated, the >>> resulting >>> 1-dimensional array undergoes array-to-pointer conversion, resulting in >>> a >>> pointer to int. >> The output demonstrates its an array , not a pointer. >> The type int[5] is not a pointer. As I said this is not implicitly >> converted >> to a pointer until its further dereferenced. And when it is converted to >> a >> pointer it will be pointer-type: int*, not int (*)[5]. > > That's right, *pai1i is an array. So why did you say it was a pointer? Its not a pointer its an array. > The value of "typeid(pa1i).name()" > would indicate that pa1i is a pointer to int[5] (the value > returned by type_info::name() is implementation defined). No its an array , it not a fucking pointer at all it's an array. > The > type int[5] is not a pointer type. However, when used in a context > where array-to-pointer conversion is applied, a value of type int[5] > is implicitly converted to a pointer to int. Your last 3 statements said it's a poiinter now you say its not a pointer, you can't accept that *pa1i returns an array because it proves the standards confirms it is a pointer to a a 2d array. > [snip] > >> It is initialised to point to a 2d array, with: >> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = a2i; >> >> a2i is a 2d array , not a 1d array. >> An array is defined at allocation, not by a pointer that points to it. > > Although a2i is a 2d array, when used in the initialization > expression array-to-pointer conversion is applied to it, and the > result is a pointer to the 1d array that is the first element of a2i. > The variable pa1i (a pointer to a 1d array) is initialized to that > pointer to a 1d array result. The pointed to array is a 2d array, not a 1d array. The pointer type is pointer to int[5], which does not point to an element, it points to a 2d array. The reason its type is pointer to 1d array is because of the rules of the C++ language, the standards state: When dereferenced a pointer ot an array returns the pointed to (n-1) dimensional array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 18:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8scsp6p1naskcu3aktd834u8sa73g4lj3p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3298 |
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:39:19 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >news:slrniprt2j.kbq.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> On 2011-04-06, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >>> news:slrnippgqs.2q59.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> [snip] >>>>> pa1i was declared as a pointer to a 2d array with: >>>>> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = a2i; >>>> >>>> In that declaration pa1i is declared as a pointer to a 1-dimensional >>>> array. Here is an example from section 8.1 (Type Names) of the C++ >>>> standard. >>>> >>>> int // int i >>>> int * // int *pi >>>> int *[3] // int *p[3] >>>> int (*)[3] // int (*p3i)[3] >>>> int *() // int *f() >>>> int (*)(double) // int (*pf)(double) >>>> >>>> name respectively the types "int," "pointer to int," "array of 3 >>>> pointers to int," "pointer to array of 3 int," "function of (no >>>> parameters) returning pointer to int," and "pointer to a function >>>> of (double) returning int. >>> Thats the pointer-types, not what it points to. >>> If you interpret this as saying pa1i does not point to a 2d array then >>> you >>> have some serious intellectual problems. >> >> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here >> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: > >No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. Wrong. Once again, as another poster has responded: "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the object or function to which the expression points. If the type of the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T. [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1.]" >1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created. >Some objects are polymorphic". Runtime polymorphism is hardly an exception to the examples in this thread and furthermore, you failed to grasp the point of what polymorphism is, which is to determine at runtime what the type of an object is. Regardless, the pointer rule is still valid. > >The pointer type of a pointer that points to an object in C++ can be a void* The case for void* was explicitly mentioned in the citation that you likely could not understand to begin with. >or another type of pointer that is not the same type as the object. > You are misinterpreting the C++ standards. actually, you are, Paul. >> >> The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which >> it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer >> to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the >> object or function to which the expression points. If the type of >> the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T. >> [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can >> be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited >> ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must >> not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1.] >> >This is a paragraph that explains the unary operator *. >It explains how dereferencing works, not what a pointer can or cannot point >to. It defines dereferencing in the context of behaviour of a pointer to a type, so it is very much a valid citation. From 5.3.1 Unary operators: "If the type of the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T." But if that is not clear enough for you, then here is an exact quote from the author of the C++ language who also actively maintains The Standard that you repeatedly fail to understand: From TCPPPL 5.1 Pointers "For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." If that is not simple enough for the simpleton, then nothing else will be. <the rest snipped due to predication on mis-citation and false assertion>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 01:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qrsnp.28100$7u3.13695@newsfe04.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3300 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8scsp6p1naskcu3aktd834u8sa73g4lj3p@4ax.com... <big snip> > > From TCPPPL 5.1 Pointers > "For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." int* p = 0; The pointer p is a pointer-to-int type, it doesn't point to an int. Oviously, being the idiot that you are, you incorrectly think the pointer-type defines what is pointed to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 23:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6vrsp6hqsndt6hrranstjurmck6bctq5nk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3302 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:14:12 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:8scsp6p1naskcu3aktd834u8sa73g4lj3p@4ax.com... ><big snip> >> >> From TCPPPL 5.1 Pointers >> "For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." > >int* p = 0; >The pointer p is a pointer-to-int type, it doesn't point to an int. and presenting a NULL pointer example is supposed to some how refute the response to previous examples that you snipped? You have the mind of a child :) >Oviously, being the idiot that you are, you incorrectly think the >pointer-type defines what is pointed to. The meaning of "For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T"" is abundantly clear. My assertions have always followed the logic that a variable of type T* can hold the address of an object of type T. And all of my assertions are for the context that I apply them to since obviously a NULL pointer is a valid exception. You OTOH make false assertions based on what you think other people mean because you are incapable of comprehending the face value of technical terminology while your dim logic excludes valid context. In fact, you're the one that thinks that the memory allocated by new defines what a pointer points to as opposed to the return type and value of new. That's why you insist on invoking UB in many of your obtuse examples that use C-style casts on the return of new. I purposefully list your favorite example below because you have no grasp on context, so I enforce one here. int*p = new int[5]; // Paul's favorite example and his favorite quote is that "p points to an array" 1) p is a pointer of int type NOT int array type. 2) p points to the first element of an array NOT to an object of array type. 3) p points to a single int element NOT to more than one int. 4) p++ increments the address stored by p by a memory range of sizeof(int) bytes NOT sizeof(int[5]) bytes Within the context of a specific example, not only do I assert the above 4 statements that I have listed, each of those 4 points with regards to C++ behavior is defined by the Standard as well as in The C++ Programming Language. At the end of your weeks of ramblings, an array is not just a pointer, an int type is not the same as an int array type, and you still have a "Problem with array objects" as this thread's subject correctly stipulates. Try harder next time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 08:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o5znp.22242$rF.9347@newsfe12.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3303 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6vrsp6hqsndt6hrranstjurmck6bctq5nk@4ax.com... > On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:14:12 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:8scsp6p1naskcu3aktd834u8sa73g4lj3p@4ax.com... >><big snip> >>> >>> From TCPPPL 5.1 Pointers >>> "For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." >> >>int* p = 0; >>The pointer p is a pointer-to-int type, it doesn't point to an int. > and presenting a NULL pointer example is supposed to some how refute the > response to previous examples that you snipped? > > You have the mind of a child :) And you have the mind of an idiot :-) >>Oviously, being the idiot that you are, you incorrectly think the >>pointer-type defines what is pointed to. > The meaning of "For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T"" is abundantly > clear. Yes it is quite clear its a pointer type. <snip unread bullshit>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 04:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v2gtp6lit4coepk6qd9iv57rvg5sfbphpc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3308 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 08:48:32 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:6vrsp6hqsndt6hrranstjurmck6bctq5nk@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:14:12 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> >>>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:8scsp6p1naskcu3aktd834u8sa73g4lj3p@4ax.com... >>><big snip> >>>> >>>> From TCPPPL 5.1 Pointers >>>> "For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." >>> >>>int* p = 0; >>>The pointer p is a pointer-to-int type, it doesn't point to an int. >> and presenting a NULL pointer example is supposed to some how refute the >> response to previous examples that you snipped? >> >> You have the mind of a child :) > >And you have the mind of an idiot :-) What you really mean to say is that EVERYBODY that proves you wrong is an idiot. > >>>Oviously, being the idiot that you are, you incorrectly think the >>>pointer-type defines what is pointed to. >> The meaning of "For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T"" is abundantly >> clear. > >Yes it is quite clear its a pointer type. > ><snip unread bullshit> Unread? really? :) Didn't you say something like that before in this very discussion? Unread as in .. ? On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:09:00 -0000, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I shall be deleting your posts without reading them from now on. OR unread as in, you're really reading them but you cannot refute the irrefutable without resorting to child like behavior? So which is it? 1) Too little willpower to actually not respond to posts that you said you would not read? OR 2) Too little logic and reasoning skills that you cannot even cite a single excerpt of anything C++ related without recognizing its context? Fail on, Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 12:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnipui24.1tih.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3298 |
On 2011-04-07, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrniprt2j.kbq.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> On 2011-04-06, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnippgqs.2q59.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
[snip]
>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here
>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard:
>
> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to.
> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states:
> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created.
> Some
> objects are polymorphic".
Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been
about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not
inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be
polymorphic, but an array is not.
> The pointer type of a pointer that points to an object in C++ can be a void*
> or another type of pointer that is not the same type as the object. You are
> misinterpreting the C++ standards.
I'm not misinterpreting the C++ standard. What a pointer may validly
point to is a detail not previously covered in these posts. These
posts are long enough without adding more details. However, since it
appears you want to discuss these details, I'll oblige.
Attempts to access what is pointed may be undefined depending on
whether the pointer type (the static type) and the object type
(the dymanic type) is a valid combination. When T is a
non-polymorphic type, dereferencing a pointer to T attempts to
access an object of type T. When T is a polymorphic type,
dereferencing a pointer to type T attempts to access an object of
type T except when a virtual function is called on the object.
A void* may validly point to any object, but a void* cannot be used to
access what it points to.
>> The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which
>> it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer
>> to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the
>> object or function to which the expression points. If the type of
>> the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T.
>> [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can
>> be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited
>> ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must
>> not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1.]
>>
> This is a paragraph that explains the unary operator *.
> It explains how dereferencing works, not what a pointer can or cannot point
> to.
According to the standard: "If the type of the expression is a pointer
to T, the type of the result is T." The result of dereferencing a
valid pointer is what the pointer points to.
>> I don't have any serious intellectual problems. I am using the term
>> "points to" with the meaning it has in C++. The meaning of the term
>> may be different in other contexts, but using another meaning when
>> discussing C++ may lead to errors.
> "Points to" is a term that quite clearly needs no definition in the C++
> standard.
>
> The C++ standard state the following;
> 4.10 Pointer conversions:
> "An rvalue of type "pointer to cv T," where T is an object type, can be
> converted to an rvalue of type
> "pointer to cv void." The result of converting a "pointer to cv T" to a
> "pointer to cv void" points to the
> start of the storage location where the object of type T resides, as if the
> object is a most derived object (1.7)
> of type T (that is, not a base class subobject)."
>
> As you can see with a pointer to an object, the pointer actually points to
> the start of the objects storage location. So do you think a pointer to an
> object doesn't actually point to an object?
No, I don't think that; a pointer to an object points to an object.
In C++, pointers have a type in addition to a storage location value.
The result of dereferencing a pointer is what the pointer points to.
The "most derived object" wording applies to an object with a polymorphic
type; an array is not polymorphic.
>>>> According to the C++ standard, "int (*p3i)[3]" declares a "pointer
>>>> to an array of 3 int".
> Its TYPE is pointer to array. What it points to can be null, or almost
> anything.
> You are obviously confusing its type with what it points to.
"int (*p3i)[3]" declares pointer to an array of 3 int. Dereferencing
that pointer results in an array of 3 int. The type that was used
when the object allocated does not matter except in a a call to a
virtual function. Dereferencing a pointer that is not pointing to an
object of the right type is undefined behavior.
>> That array has one dimension.
>>> No it doesn't the standard clearly says that is a TYPE. The standard does
>>> not define that it points to a 1d array. The standard actually implies
>>> that
>>> type points to a 2d array, in the section about pointers to arrays..
>>
>> See the above quote from section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard about the
>> unary * operator, which contains: "If the type of the expression is
>> a pointer to T, the type of the result is T." A pointer to a 1d
>> array points to a 1d array. If a pointer to a 1d array could point
>> to a 2d array, the statement
> The above is describing the result of dereferencing a pointer of type T.
> This does not define what a pointer points to , a pointer can be null and
> point to nothing.
Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour. The result of
dereferencing a valid pointer to T is a value of type T.
>> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = &a2i;
>>
>> would be allowed, but it isn't.
>>
>> Exactly where (section and paragraph) does the standard state that a
>> pointer to a 1d array can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point
>> to a 1d element of a 2d array?
>>
> This is another example of your bad coding, you dont take the address of an
> array to get a pointer to it.
The result of the unary & operator is a pointer to its operand. Taking
the address of an array is how you get a pointer to the array. Look at
the return value of typeid(&a2i).name().
You have not answered the question: Exactly where (section and
paragraph) does the standard state that a pointer to a 1d array
can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point to a 1d element
of a 2d array?
[snip]
>>>>> std::cout << typeid(*pa1i).name ;
>>>>> outputs int[5]. There is no implicit conversion to pointer unless it's
>>>>> further dereferenced i.e: pali[0][0].
>>>>
>>>> There is no implicit conversion in a typeid expression. According
>>>> to paragraph 3 of section 5.2.8 (Type identification) of the C++
>>>> standard:
>>>>
>>>> When typeid is applied to an expression other than an lvalue of
>>>> a polymorphic class type, the result refers to a type_info object
>>>> representing the static type of the expression. Lvalue-to-rvalue
>>>> (4.1), array-to-pointer (4.2), and function-to-pointer (4.3)
>>>> conversions are not applied to the expression. If the type of
>>>> the expression is a class type, the class shall be
>>>> completely-defined. The expression is not evaluated.
>>>>
>>>> The output "int[5]" demonstrates that pali is a pointer to a
>>>> 1-dimensional
>>>> array. In a context where the expression *pa1i is evaluated, the
>>>> resulting
>>>> 1-dimensional array undergoes array-to-pointer conversion, resulting in
>>>> a
>>>> pointer to int.
>>> The output demonstrates its an array , not a pointer.
>>> The type int[5] is not a pointer. As I said this is not implicitly
>>> converted
>>> to a pointer until its further dereferenced. And when it is converted to
>>> a
>>> pointer it will be pointer-type: int*, not int (*)[5].
>>
>> That's right, *pai1i is an array.
> So why did you say it was a pointer? Its not a pointer its an array.
What I said (correcting for typos) was: pa1i is a pointer to an array,
*pa1i is an array, and when *pa1i (an array of int) is in a context
where array-to-pointer conversion is done, it is implicitly converted
to a pointer to int. That pointer to int points to the first element
of the array.
Here is what Bjarne Stroustrup wrote in The C++ Programming
Language (page 91 of the Special Edition)
The name of an array can be used as a pointer to its initial
element. For example:
int v[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
int* p1 = v; // pointer to initial element (implicitly converted)
int* p2 = &v[0]; // pointer to initial element
int* p3 = &v[4]; // pointer to one beyond last element
>> The value of "typeid(pa1i).name()"
>> would indicate that pa1i is a pointer to int[5] (the value
>> returned by type_info::name() is implementation defined).
> No its an array , it not a fucking pointer at all it's an array.
What output do you get for the following program?
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
int main() {
int (*pa1i)[5];
std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"typeid( pa1i)="<<typeid( pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
}
The output I get is
typeid(*pa1i)=A5_i
typeid( pa1i)=PA5_i
The output indicates that *pa1i is an array of 5 int and pa1i is a pointer
to an array of 5 int.
>> The
>> type int[5] is not a pointer type. However, when used in a context
>> where array-to-pointer conversion is applied, a value of type int[5]
>> is implicitly converted to a pointer to int.
> Your last 3 statements said it's a poiinter now you say its not a pointer,
> you can't accept that *pa1i returns an array because it proves the standards
> confirms it is a pointer to a a 2d array.
What I said was that *pa1i is an array and pali is a pointer to an
array. The result of the expression
typeid(*pa1i).name()
indicates that *pa1i is a 1d array of int; array-to-pointer
conversion is not applied to the operand of typeid (see the above
quote from the Type Identification section of the standard).
In the statement
int *pi = *pa1i;
*pa1i is a 1d array of int to which array-to-pointer conversion
is applied, resulting in a pointer to int. Here is part of
paragraph 14 of section 8.5 (Initializers):
Otherwise, the initial value of the object being initialized is
the (possibly converted) value of the initializer expression.
Standard conversions (clause 4) will be used, if necessary, to
convert the initializer expression to the cv-unqualified
version of the destination type; no user-defined conversions
are considered.
>>> It is initialised to point to a 2d array, with:
>>> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = a2i;
>>>
>>> a2i is a 2d array , not a 1d array.
>>> An array is defined at allocation, not by a pointer that points to it.
>>
>> Although a2i is a 2d array, when used in the initialization
>> expression array-to-pointer conversion is applied to it, and the
>> result is a pointer to the 1d array that is the first element of a2i.
>> The variable pa1i (a pointer to a 1d array) is initialized to that
>> pointer to a 1d array result.
> The pointed to array is a 2d array, not a 1d array. The pointer type is
> pointer to int[5], which does not point to an element, it points to a 2d
> array. The reason its type is pointer to 1d array is because of the rules
> of the C++ language, the standards state:
> When dereferenced a pointer ot an array returns the pointed to (n-1)
> dimensional array.
You are partially right. The type of the initialization expression
a2i is a pointer to int[5]. However, you are wrong about it not
pointing to an element; it points to the first of the 3 int[5]
elements of the array named a2i. Here is paragraph 1 of section 4.2
(Array-to-pointer conversion) of the C++ standard:
An lvalue or rvalue of type array of N T or array of unknown bound
of T can be converted to an rvalue of type pointer to T. The result
is a pointer to the first element of the array.
The pointed to array is a 1d array because accessing what a pointer
to a 1d array points to accesses a 1d array. In this case, the 1d
array is an element of a 2d array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 21:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bTJnp.24577$rF.6351@newsfe12.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3322 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:slrnipui24.1tih.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> On 2011-04-07, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrniprt2j.kbq.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>>> On 2011-04-06, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnippgqs.2q59.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> [snip]
>>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here
>>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard:
>>
>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to.
>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states:
>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is
>> created.
>> Some
>> objects are polymorphic".
>
> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been
> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not
> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be
> polymorphic, but an array is not.
>
The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it was
posted becuase it says:
"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created."
An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by some
pointer that points to it.
You said :
"In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type."
This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined by a
type of pointer, pointing to it.
>> The pointer type of a pointer that points to an object in C++ can be a
>> void*
>> or another type of pointer that is not the same type as the object. You
>> are
>> misinterpreting the C++ standards.
>
> I'm not misinterpreting the C++ standard. What a pointer may validly
> point to is a detail not previously covered in these posts. These
> posts are long enough without adding more details. However, since it
> appears you want to discuss these details, I'll oblige.
>
> Attempts to access what is pointed may be undefined depending on
> whether the pointer type (the static type) and the object type
> (the dymanic type) is a valid combination. When T is a
> non-polymorphic type, dereferencing a pointer to T attempts to
> access an object of type T. When T is a polymorphic type,
> dereferencing a pointer to type T attempts to access an object of
> type T except when a virtual function is called on the object.
>
> A void* may validly point to any object, but a void* cannot be used to
> access what it points to.
>
Again you said :
"In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type."
This is completely wrong , a pointer can point to almost anything.
>>> The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which
>>> it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer
>>> to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the
>>> object or function to which the expression points. If the type of
>>> the expression is pointer to T, the type of the result is T.
>>> [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void ) can
>>> be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited
>>> ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must
>>> not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1.]
>>>
>> This is a paragraph that explains the unary operator *.
>> It explains how dereferencing works, not what a pointer can or cannot
>> point
>> to.
>
> According to the standard: "If the type of the expression is a pointer
> to T, the type of the result is T." The result of dereferencing a
> valid pointer is what the pointer points to.
I know what dereferencing a pointer does, I also know what a pointer can
point to.
You have repeatedly said that, what a pointer points to depends on the
pointer type,which is comletely incorrect.
>
>>> I don't have any serious intellectual problems. I am using the term
>>> "points to" with the meaning it has in C++. The meaning of the term
>>> may be different in other contexts, but using another meaning when
>>> discussing C++ may lead to errors.
>> "Points to" is a term that quite clearly needs no definition in the C++
>> standard.
>>
>> The C++ standard state the following;
>> 4.10 Pointer conversions:
>> "An rvalue of type "pointer to cv T," where T is an object type, can be
>> converted to an rvalue of type
>> "pointer to cv void." The result of converting a "pointer to cv T" to a
>> "pointer to cv void" points to the
>> start of the storage location where the object of type T resides, as if
>> the
>> object is a most derived object (1.7)
>> of type T (that is, not a base class subobject)."
>>
>> As you can see with a pointer to an object, the pointer actually points
>> to
>> the start of the objects storage location. So do you think a pointer to
>> an
>> object doesn't actually point to an object?
>
> No, I don't think that; a pointer to an object points to an object.
> In C++, pointers have a type in addition to a storage location value.
> The result of dereferencing a pointer is what the pointer points to.
> The "most derived object" wording applies to an object with a polymorphic
> type; an array is not polymorphic.
>
The pointer type does not define the pointed to object.
>>>>> According to the C++ standard, "int (*p3i)[3]" declares a "pointer
>>>>> to an array of 3 int".
>> Its TYPE is pointer to array. What it points to can be null, or almost
>> anything.
>> You are obviously confusing its type with what it points to.
>
> "int (*p3i)[3]" declares pointer to an array of 3 int.
No it declares a pointer of type poiner to array. It doesn't point to
anything valid until its been initialised.
> Dereferencing
> that pointer results in an array of 3 int.
Dereferencing it results in UB.
> The type that was used
> when the object allocated does not matter except in a a call to a
> virtual function. Dereferencing a pointer that is not pointing to an
> object of the right type is undefined behavior.
Of course the allocated object type matters. It would be extremely
incompetent to manipulate memory without knowing what type of data was
represented there.
The allocated object defines the type of object, not some pointer that
points to the memory.
>
>>> That array has one dimension.
>>>> No it doesn't the standard clearly says that is a TYPE. The standard
>>>> does
>>>> not define that it points to a 1d array. The standard actually implies
>>>> that
>>>> type points to a 2d array, in the section about pointers to arrays..
>>>
>>> See the above quote from section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard about the
>>> unary * operator, which contains: "If the type of the expression is
>>> a pointer to T, the type of the result is T." A pointer to a 1d
>>> array points to a 1d array. If a pointer to a 1d array could point
>>> to a 2d array, the statement
>> The above is describing the result of dereferencing a pointer of type T.
>> This does not define what a pointer points to , a pointer can be null and
>> point to nothing.
>
> Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour. The result of
> dereferencing a valid pointer to T is a value of type T.
A null pointer is a valid object and well defined in the C++ standards.
>
>>> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = &a2i;
>>>
>>> would be allowed, but it isn't.
>>>
>>> Exactly where (section and paragraph) does the standard state that a
>>> pointer to a 1d array can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point
>>> to a 1d element of a 2d array?
>>>
>> This is another example of your bad coding, you dont take the address of
>> an
>> array to get a pointer to it.
>
> The result of the unary & operator is a pointer to its operand. Taking
> the address of an array is how you get a pointer to the array. Look at
> the return value of typeid(&a2i).name().
No arrays are implicitly converted to pointers, taking the address of an
array creates an unneccessary extra level of indirection
>
> You have not answered the question: Exactly where (section and
> paragraph) does the standard state that a pointer to a 1d array
> can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point to a 1d element
> of a 2d array?
>
Read the section titled: Arrays.
> [snip]
>
>>>>>> std::cout << typeid(*pa1i).name ;
>>>>>> outputs int[5]. There is no implicit conversion to pointer unless
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> further dereferenced i.e: pali[0][0].
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no implicit conversion in a typeid expression. According
>>>>> to paragraph 3 of section 5.2.8 (Type identification) of the C++
>>>>> standard:
>>>>>
>>>>> When typeid is applied to an expression other than an lvalue of
>>>>> a polymorphic class type, the result refers to a type_info object
>>>>> representing the static type of the expression. Lvalue-to-rvalue
>>>>> (4.1), array-to-pointer (4.2), and function-to-pointer (4.3)
>>>>> conversions are not applied to the expression. If the type of
>>>>> the expression is a class type, the class shall be
>>>>> completely-defined. The expression is not evaluated.
>>>>>
>>>>> The output "int[5]" demonstrates that pali is a pointer to a
>>>>> 1-dimensional
>>>>> array. In a context where the expression *pa1i is evaluated, the
>>>>> resulting
>>>>> 1-dimensional array undergoes array-to-pointer conversion, resulting
>>>>> in
>>>>> a
>>>>> pointer to int.
>>>> The output demonstrates its an array , not a pointer.
>>>> The type int[5] is not a pointer. As I said this is not implicitly
>>>> converted
>>>> to a pointer until its further dereferenced. And when it is converted
>>>> to
>>>> a
>>>> pointer it will be pointer-type: int*, not int (*)[5].
>>>
>>> That's right, *pai1i is an array.
>> So why did you say it was a pointer? Its not a pointer its an array.
>
> What I said (correcting for typos) was: pa1i is a pointer to an array,
> *pa1i is an array, and when *pa1i (an array of int) is in a context
> where array-to-pointer conversion is done, it is implicitly converted
> to a pointer to int. That pointer to int points to the first element
> of the array.
>
You said :
"The output "int[5]" demonstrates that pali is a pointer to a 1-dimensional
array."
Its not a pointer, which you still repeat in your correction, it's an
array.
> Here is what Bjarne Stroustrup wrote in The C++ Programming
> Language (page 91 of the Special Edition)
>
> The name of an array can be used as a pointer to its initial
> element. For example:
>
> int v[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
> int* p1 = v; // pointer to initial element (implicitly converted)
> int* p2 = &v[0]; // pointer to initial element
> int* p3 = &v[4]; // pointer to one beyond last element
>
BS also said that a pointer of type char* can point to a single char or an
array of chars.
You think a char* cannot possibly point to an array of chars, which is a
direct disagreement with BS.
I agree with all BS has said in your quote , it does not in any way suggest
what you are suggesting.
>>> The value of "typeid(pa1i).name()"
>>> would indicate that pa1i is a pointer to int[5] (the value
>>> returned by type_info::name() is implementation defined).
>> No its an array , it not a fucking pointer at all it's an array.
>
> What output do you get for the following program?
>
> #include <iostream>
> #include <typeinfo>
>
> int main() {
> int (*pa1i)[5];
>
> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
> std::cout<<"typeid( pa1i)="<<typeid( pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
> }
>
> The output I get is
>
> typeid(*pa1i)=A5_i
> typeid( pa1i)=PA5_i
>
> The output indicates that *pa1i is an array of 5 int and pa1i is a pointer
> to an array of 5 int.
>
I can tell you without even compiling this I won't get the same output you
get.
*pa1i will give me ... int[5]
pa1i will give me .... int (*)[5]
What do you tihnk this proves? It outputs the pointer-TYPE. The pointer
doesn't even point to anything valid, its uninitialised.
This type of pointer can point to a 2d array or a 1d array but its more
general use is a pointer to a 2d array. Yes its type is pointer to 1d array,
because thats how pointers to arrays work in C++, see the section on arrays
which explains why an array is pointed to by a (n-1) dimensional type
pointer.
Why can't you just accept what is in the standards instead of being ignorant
to this? It's not irelevant as you have previously said.
>>> The
>>> type int[5] is not a pointer type. However, when used in a context
>>> where array-to-pointer conversion is applied, a value of type int[5]
>>> is implicitly converted to a pointer to int.
>> Your last 3 statements said it's a poiinter now you say its not a
>> pointer,
>> you can't accept that *pa1i returns an array because it proves the
>> standards
>> confirms it is a pointer to a a 2d array.
>
> What I said was that *pa1i is an array and pali is a pointer to an
> array. The result of the expression
> typeid(*pa1i).name()
So if you accept what is written in the C++ standards then, when
dereferenced, a pointer to an array returns a pointed to (n-1) dim array.
If pa1i is derefernced it reutrns a 1d array, so the pointed to array is a
2d array.
(2-1) = 1d array.
If you do not accept this I cannot say anymore, its how the C++ language
works and its written in the C++ standards.
>
> indicates that *pa1i is a 1d array of int; array-to-pointer
> conversion is not applied to the operand of typeid (see the above
> quote from the Type Identification section of the standard).
>
No if it pointed to a 1d array then (1-1) = 0 .
Additionally why is it possible to do :
int (*p)[5] = new int[S][5];
or
int arr[5][5] = {0};
p=arr;
C++ fully supports that this TYPE of pointer can be used to point to 2d
array.
Yes it can also be used to point to a 1d array but its more commonly used to
point to a 2d array
If you refuse to think of pointers to arrays as being generally (n-1) dim
than the pointed to array, then thats up to you. Please dont try to say
everyone who accepts this is wrong becuase a pointer type can only point to
an object of that type, that is simply incorrect.
> In the statement
>
> int *pi = *pa1i;
>
> *pa1i is a 1d array of int to which array-to-pointer conversion
> is applied, resulting in a pointer to int. Here is part of
> paragraph 14 of section 8.5 (Initializers):
>
> Otherwise, the initial value of the object being initialized is
> the (possibly converted) value of the initializer expression.
> Standard conversions (clause 4) will be used, if necessary, to
> convert the initializer expression to the cv-unqualified
> version of the destination type; no user-defined conversions
> are considered.
>
And?
I don't know why you keep going on.
Accept what BS says, accept what the C++ standard says. Don't be like those
idiots around here who only argue because they are total arseholes who
cannot accept when they make mistakes.
>>>> It is initialised to point to a 2d array, with:
>>>> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = a2i;
>>>>
>>>> a2i is a 2d array , not a 1d array.
>>>> An array is defined at allocation, not by a pointer that points to it.
>>>
>>> Although a2i is a 2d array, when used in the initialization
>>> expression array-to-pointer conversion is applied to it, and the
>>> result is a pointer to the 1d array that is the first element of a2i.
>>> The variable pa1i (a pointer to a 1d array) is initialized to that
>>> pointer to a 1d array result.
>> The pointed to array is a 2d array, not a 1d array. The pointer type is
>> pointer to int[5], which does not point to an element, it points to a 2d
>> array. The reason its type is pointer to 1d array is because of the
>> rules
>> of the C++ language, the standards state:
>> When dereferenced a pointer ot an array returns the pointed to (n-1)
>> dimensional array.
>
> You are partially right. The type of the initialization expression
> a2i is a pointer to int[5]. However, you are wrong about it not
> pointing to an element; it points to the first of the 3 int[5]
> elements of the array named a2i. Here is paragraph 1 of section 4.2
> (Array-to-pointer conversion) of the C++ standard:
An array element is a single object, not a sub-array.
>
> An lvalue or rvalue of type array of N T or array of unknown bound
> of T can be converted to an rvalue of type pointer to T. The result
> is a pointer to the first element of the array.
>
> The pointed to array is a 1d array because accessing what a pointer
> to a 1d array points to accesses a 1d array. In this case, the 1d
> array is an element of a 2d array.
Ok you carry on ignoring the C++ standards and Bjarne Stroustrup and many
other experts in the field. Thats your problem not mine, if you think you
are ever going to make me think you are correct and all these other good
sources of knowledge are total bullshit then you are mistaken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-09 13:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniq18hf.2uti.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3329 |
On 2011-04-08, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnipui24.1tih.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> On 2011-04-07, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrniprt2j.kbq.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>>>> On 2011-04-06, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnippgqs.2q59.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> [snip]
>>>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here
>>>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard:
>>>
>>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to.
>>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states:
>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is
>>> created.
>>> Some
>>> objects are polymorphic".
>>
>> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been
>> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not
>> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be
>> polymorphic, but an array is not.
>>
> The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it was
> posted becuase it says:
> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created."
When reading a quote from a programming language standard, it is a
good idea to read the whole quote, including parts that establishes
the context in which the quote applies. In this case the context
is polymorphic objects.
> An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by some
> pointer that points to it.
> You said :
> "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type."
> This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined by a
> type of pointer, pointing to it.
The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the
pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it
is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object
that is accessed.
[snip]
>>>>>> According to the C++ standard, "int (*p3i)[3]" declares a "pointer
>>>>>> to an array of 3 int".
>>> Its TYPE is pointer to array. What it points to can be null, or almost
>>> anything.
>>> You are obviously confusing its type with what it points to.
>>
>> "int (*p3i)[3]" declares pointer to an array of 3 int.
> No it declares a pointer of type poiner to array. It doesn't point to
> anything valid until its been initialised.
>
>> Dereferencing
>> that pointer results in an array of 3 int.
> Dereferencing it results in UB.
That's right, a pointer variable does not point to anything valid
until its value is set. Given the declaration
int a3i[3], (*p3i)[3] = &a3i;
that sets the value of p3i and the value obtained by deferencing p3i
is defined. With that initialization, evaluating (*p3i) and a3i
result in the same value.
[snip]
>>>> That array has one dimension.
>>>>> No it doesn't the standard clearly says that is a TYPE. The standard
>>>>> does
>>>>> not define that it points to a 1d array. The standard actually implies
>>>>> that
>>>>> type points to a 2d array, in the section about pointers to arrays..
>>>>
>>>> See the above quote from section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard about the
>>>> unary * operator, which contains: "If the type of the expression is
>>>> a pointer to T, the type of the result is T." A pointer to a 1d
>>>> array points to a 1d array. If a pointer to a 1d array could point
>>>> to a 2d array, the statement
>>> The above is describing the result of dereferencing a pointer of type T.
>>> This does not define what a pointer points to , a pointer can be null and
>>> point to nothing.
>>
>> Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour. The result of
>> dereferencing a valid pointer to T is a value of type T.
> A null pointer is a valid object and well defined in the C++ standards.
Here is paragraph 4 of section 1.9 (Program execution) of the C++
standard.
Certain other operations are described in this International
Standard as undefined (for example, the effect of dereferencing
the null pointer). [Note: this International Standard imposes no
requirements on the behavior of programs that contain undefined
behavior. ]
If you think that dereferencing the null pointer is defined, you
are thinking of a programming language other than C++.
[snip]
>> You have not answered the question: Exactly where (section and
>> paragraph) does the standard state that a pointer to a 1d array
>> can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point to a 1d element
>> of a 2d array?
>>
> Read the section titled: Arrays.
I have read that section. If you think that is states that a pointer
to a 1d array can point to a 2d array, as opposed to can point to a 1d
element of a 2d array, please cite or post the the specific
paragraph(s).
>>>>>>> std::cout << typeid(*pa1i).name ;
>>>>>>> outputs int[5]. There is no implicit conversion to pointer unless
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> further dereferenced i.e: pali[0][0].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no implicit conversion in a typeid expression. According
>>>>>> to paragraph 3 of section 5.2.8 (Type identification) of the C++
>>>>>> standard:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When typeid is applied to an expression other than an lvalue of
>>>>>> a polymorphic class type, the result refers to a type_info object
>>>>>> representing the static type of the expression. Lvalue-to-rvalue
>>>>>> (4.1), array-to-pointer (4.2), and function-to-pointer (4.3)
>>>>>> conversions are not applied to the expression. If the type of
>>>>>> the expression is a class type, the class shall be
>>>>>> completely-defined. The expression is not evaluated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The output "int[5]" demonstrates that pali is a pointer to a
>>>>>> 1-dimensional
>>>>>> array. In a context where the expression *pa1i is evaluated, the
>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>> 1-dimensional array undergoes array-to-pointer conversion, resulting
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> pointer to int.
>>>>> The output demonstrates its an array , not a pointer.
>>>>> The type int[5] is not a pointer. As I said this is not implicitly
>>>>> converted
>>>>> to a pointer until its further dereferenced. And when it is converted
>>>>> to
>>>>> a
>>>>> pointer it will be pointer-type: int*, not int (*)[5].
>>>>
>>>> That's right, *pai1i is an array.
>>> So why did you say it was a pointer? Its not a pointer its an array.
>>
>> What I said (correcting for typos) was: pa1i is a pointer to an array,
>> *pa1i is an array, and when *pa1i (an array of int) is in a context
>> where array-to-pointer conversion is done, it is implicitly converted
>> to a pointer to int. That pointer to int points to the first element
>> of the array.
>>
> You said :
> "The output "int[5]" demonstrates that pali is a pointer to a 1-dimensional
> array."
> Its not a pointer, which you still repeat in your correction, it's an
> array.
Given the delcaration
int i, *ip, a1i[5], (*pa1i)[5] = &a1i;
- The output "int" for typeid(i).name() indicates that i is an int.
- The output "int" for typeid(*ip).name() indicates that *ip is an
int. Something that when deferenced is an int is a pointer to
an int.
- The output "int[5]" for typeid(a1i).name() indicates that a1i is a
1-dimensional array.
- The output "int[5]" for typeid(*pa1i).name() indicates that *pa1i
is a 1-dimensional array. Something that when dereferenced is
a 1-dimensional array is a pointer to a 1-dimensional array.
You appear to be thinking about a programming language other than C++.
>> Here is what Bjarne Stroustrup wrote in The C++ Programming
>> Language (page 91 of the Special Edition)
>>
>> The name of an array can be used as a pointer to its initial
>> element. For example:
>>
>> int v[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
>> int* p1 = v; // pointer to initial element (implicitly converted)
>> int* p2 = &v[0]; // pointer to initial element
>> int* p3 = &v[4]; // pointer to one beyond last element
>>
> BS also said that a pointer of type char* can point to a single char or an
> array of chars.
> You think a char* cannot possibly point to an array of chars, which is a
> direct disagreement with BS.
The context in which he said pointer of type char* can point to an
array of chars was C-style strings. He did not go into the details
that the name of an array containing a C-style string was implicitly
converted to a pointer to the first character of the array. At
other times he has gone into that detail, such as the above example
and the example that followed it in "The C++ Programming Language".
Part of the following example was:
char v[] = "Annemarie";
char* p = v; // implicit conversion of char[] to char*
Where has he said that that a pointer of type int* can point to an
array of int, as opposed to can point to the first element of an
array of int?
> I agree with all BS has said in your quote , it does not in any way suggest
> what you are suggesting.
It suggests exactly what I have been saying. In the first example
p1 points to an element of an array; it does not point to the array.
>>>> The value of "typeid(pa1i).name()"
>>>> would indicate that pa1i is a pointer to int[5] (the value
>>>> returned by type_info::name() is implementation defined).
>>> No its an array , it not a fucking pointer at all it's an array.
>>
>> What output do you get for the following program?
>>
>> #include <iostream>
>> #include <typeinfo>
>>
>> int main() {
>> int (*pa1i)[5];
>>
>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>> std::cout<<"typeid( pa1i)="<<typeid( pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>> }
>>
>> The output I get is
>>
>> typeid(*pa1i)=A5_i
>> typeid( pa1i)=PA5_i
>>
>> The output indicates that *pa1i is an array of 5 int and pa1i is a pointer
>> to an array of 5 int.
>>
> I can tell you without even compiling this I won't get the same output you
> get.
> *pa1i will give me ... int[5]
> pa1i will give me .... int (*)[5]
You don't get the exact same output because as I wrote above, the
C-style string "value returned by type_info::name() is implementation
defined". We are using different C++ compilers.
> What do you tihnk this proves? It outputs the pointer-TYPE. The pointer
> doesn't even point to anything valid, its uninitialised.
It proves what I have been saying: *pa1i is an array and pa1i is a
pointer to an array. You are the one who introduced what
typeid(*pa1i).name() returns. I am simplying using what it returns
to support what I claim.
> This type of pointer can point to a 2d array or a 1d array but its more
> general use is a pointer to a 2d array. Yes its type is pointer to 1d array,
> because thats how pointers to arrays work in C++, see the section on arrays
> which explains why an array is pointed to by a (n-1) dimensional type
> pointer.
An int* is a pointer to an int. Given what you mean by "point to",
as opposed to what it means in C++, an int* could point to an array
of any number of dimensions. For example, given
int a4i[1][2][3][4], *ip = &(a4i[0][0][0][0]);
the value of the pointer to int ip is an address is the address of the
4-dimensional array a4i, therefore a pointer to int is pointing to a
4-dimensional array.
> Why can't you just accept what is in the standards instead of being ignorant
> to this? It's not irelevant as you have previously said.
I accept what is actually written in the C++ standard. You are the one
who is interpreting beyond what is actually written.
>>>> The
>>>> type int[5] is not a pointer type. However, when used in a context
>>>> where array-to-pointer conversion is applied, a value of type int[5]
>>>> is implicitly converted to a pointer to int.
>>> Your last 3 statements said it's a poiinter now you say its not a
>>> pointer,
>>> you can't accept that *pa1i returns an array because it proves the
>>> standards
>>> confirms it is a pointer to a a 2d array.
>>
>> What I said was that *pa1i is an array and pali is a pointer to an
>> array. The result of the expression
>> typeid(*pa1i).name()
> So if you accept what is written in the C++ standards then, when
> dereferenced, a pointer to an array returns a pointed to (n-1) dim array.
> If pa1i is derefernced it reutrns a 1d array, so the pointed to array is a
> 2d array.
> (2-1) = 1d array.
>
> If you do not accept this I cannot say anymore, its how the C++ language
> works and its written in the C++ standards.
Your logic here is
- deferencing a pointer to a 1d array results in a 1d array
- a 2d array in a context where array-to-pointer conversion is done
results in a 1d array
- therefore a pointer to a 1d array points to a 2d array
However, the conclusion is wrong in general because it does not hold
in contexts where array-to-pointer conversion is not done.
>> indicates that *pa1i is a 1d array of int; array-to-pointer
>> conversion is not applied to the operand of typeid (see the above
>> quote from the Type Identification section of the standard).
>>
> No if it pointed to a 1d array then (1-1) = 0 .
Why would a pointer to a 1d array, as opposed to a 1d array, undergo
a conversion to a pointer to an array of 1 fewer dimensions?
> Additionally why is it possible to do :
> int (*p)[5] = new int[S][5];
> or
> int arr[5][5] = {0};
> p=arr;
In the first declaration, "new int[S][5]" returns a pointer to an
int[5] and the pointer variable p is set to that return value.
Initializing a variable of type pointer to int[5] with a value of
the same type is allowed in C++.
In the assignment statement, "arr" evaluates to a pointer to an
int[5] (array-to-pointer conversion is done on an int[5][5],
resulting in a pointer to an int[5]). Assigning to a variable of
type pointer to int[5] a value of the same type is allowed in C++.
As a result of the assignment, the variable points to the first element
(an array of 5 int) of the variable named arr (an array of 5 arrays of
5 int).
> C++ fully supports that this TYPE of pointer can be used to point to 2d
> array.
> Yes it can also be used to point to a 1d array but its more commonly used to
> point to a 2d array
>
> If you refuse to think of pointers to arrays as being generally (n-1) dim
> than the pointed to array, then thats up to you. Please dont try to say
> everyone who accepts this is wrong becuase a pointer type can only point to
> an object of that type, that is simply incorrect.
In C++ a pointer to a 1d array can point to a 1d array. That 1d array
may be an element of a 2d array. However, such a pointer points to
a 1d array, not a 2d array. Believing that it points to a 2d array can
lead to errors similar to those using the external declaration
int *pa;
and defintion
int pa[5]
in different files because arrays and pointers are the same.
>> In the statement
>>
>> int *pi = *pa1i;
>>
>> *pa1i is a 1d array of int to which array-to-pointer conversion
>> is applied, resulting in a pointer to int. Here is part of
>> paragraph 14 of section 8.5 (Initializers):
>>
>> Otherwise, the initial value of the object being initialized is
>> the (possibly converted) value of the initializer expression.
>> Standard conversions (clause 4) will be used, if necessary, to
>> convert the initializer expression to the cv-unqualified
>> version of the destination type; no user-defined conversions
>> are considered.
>>
> And?
> I don't know why you keep going on.
> Accept what BS says, accept what the C++ standard says. Don't be like those
> idiots around here who only argue because they are total arseholes who
> cannot accept when they make mistakes.
I accept exactly what the C++ standard says; I don't interpret it in
a way that can lead to confusion.
>>>>> It is initialised to point to a 2d array, with:
>>>>> int a2i[3][5], (*pa1i)[5] = a2i;
>>>>>
>>>>> a2i is a 2d array , not a 1d array.
>>>>> An array is defined at allocation, not by a pointer that points to it.
>>>>
>>>> Although a2i is a 2d array, when used in the initialization
>>>> expression array-to-pointer conversion is applied to it, and the
>>>> result is a pointer to the 1d array that is the first element of a2i.
>>>> The variable pa1i (a pointer to a 1d array) is initialized to that
>>>> pointer to a 1d array result.
>>> The pointed to array is a 2d array, not a 1d array. The pointer type is
>>> pointer to int[5], which does not point to an element, it points to a 2d
>>> array. The reason its type is pointer to 1d array is because of the
>>> rules
>>> of the C++ language, the standards state:
>>> When dereferenced a pointer ot an array returns the pointed to (n-1)
>>> dimensional array.
>>
>> You are partially right. The type of the initialization expression
>> a2i is a pointer to int[5]. However, you are wrong about it not
>> pointing to an element; it points to the first of the 3 int[5]
>> elements of the array named a2i. Here is paragraph 1 of section 4.2
>> (Array-to-pointer conversion) of the C++ standard:
>
> An array element is a single object, not a sub-array.
In C++ a multidimensonal array is an array of arrays. Given the
declaration
int a2i[3][5];
a2i is an array of 3 elements where each of those elements is an
array of 5 int. That is what paragragh 7 of section 8.3.4 (Arrays)
of the standard indicates. Here it is (again)
A consistent rule is followed for multidimensional arrays. If E
is an n-dimensional array of rank ixjx...xk, then E appearing in
an expression is converted to a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional
array with rank jx...xk. If the * operator, either explicitly or
implicitly as a result of subscripting, is applied to this pointer,
the result is the pointed to (n - 1)-dimensional array, which
itself is immediately converted into a pointer.
>> An lvalue or rvalue of type array of N T or array of unknown bound
>> of T can be converted to an rvalue of type pointer to T. The result
>> is a pointer to the first element of the array.
>>
>> The pointed to array is a 1d array because accessing what a pointer
>> to a 1d array points to accesses a 1d array. In this case, the 1d
>> array is an element of a 2d array.
> Ok you carry on ignoring the C++ standards and Bjarne Stroustrup and many
> other experts in the field. Thats your problem not mine, if you think you
> are ever going to make me think you are correct and all these other good
> sources of knowledge are total bullshit then you are mistaken.
I accept exactly what is written in the C++ standard. I realize
what I or others write will not change your mind. You have reached
certain conculsions that you hold to be correct regardless of what
is exactly written in the C++ standard.
Readers of this newsgroup should see exactly what is written in the
C++ standard. That is why I have included complete paragraphs from
it in my posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-09 20:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1w2op.28083$bT6.26443@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3361 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message news:slrniq18hf.2uti.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... > On 2011-04-08, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here >>>>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: >>>> >>>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>> created. >>>> Some >>>> objects are polymorphic". >>> >>> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been >>> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not >>> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be >>> polymorphic, but an array is not. >>> >> The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it was >> posted becuase it says: >> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >> created." > > When reading a quote from a programming language standard, it is a > good idea to read the whole quote, including parts that establishes > the context in which the quote applies. In this case the context > is polymorphic objects. > Are you a complete fucking idiot? !!! "1.7 The C+ + object model [intro.object] 1 The constructs in a C + + program create, destroy, refer to, access, and manipulate objects. An object is a region of storage. An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a newexpression (5.3.4) or by the implementation (12.2) when needed. The properties of an object are determined when the object is created. An object can have a name (3). An object has a storage duration (3.7) which influences its lifetime (3.8). An object has a type (3.9). The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created. Some objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates information associated with each such object that makes it possible to determine that object's type during program execution. For other objects, the interpretation of the values found therein is determined by the type of the expressions (5) used to access them" *****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created. **** PERIOD Its talking about fucking objects, NOT fucking only polymorphic objects, you dumb fucking twat. >> An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by some >> pointer that points to it. >> You said : >> "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type." >> This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined by a >> type of pointer, pointing to it. > > The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the > pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it > is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object > that is accessed. > In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to it. You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept that you fucking twat. > [snip] > >>>>>>> According to the C++ standard, "int (*p3i)[3]" declares a "pointer >>>>>>> to an array of 3 int". >>>> Its TYPE is pointer to array. What it points to can be null, or almost >>>> anything. >>>> You are obviously confusing its type with what it points to. >>> >>> "int (*p3i)[3]" declares pointer to an array of 3 int. >> No it declares a pointer of type poiner to array. It doesn't point to >> anything valid until its been initialised. >> >>> Dereferencing >>> that pointer results in an array of 3 int. >> Dereferencing it results in UB. > > That's right, a pointer variable does not point to anything valid > until its value is set. Given the declaration > So you were wrong, once again you were speaking utter bullshit. <snip> > [snip] > >>>>> That array has one dimension. >>>>>> No it doesn't the standard clearly says that is a TYPE. The standard >>>>>> does >>>>>> not define that it points to a 1d array. The standard actually >>>>>> implies >>>>>> that >>>>>> type points to a 2d array, in the section about pointers to arrays.. >>>>> >>>>> See the above quote from section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard about the >>>>> unary * operator, which contains: "If the type of the expression is >>>>> a pointer to T, the type of the result is T." A pointer to a 1d >>>>> array points to a 1d array. If a pointer to a 1d array could point >>>>> to a 2d array, the statement >>>> The above is describing the result of dereferencing a pointer of type >>>> T. >>>> This does not define what a pointer points to , a pointer can be null >>>> and >>>> point to nothing. >>> >>> Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour. The result of >>> dereferencing a valid pointer to T is a value of type T. >> A null pointer is a valid object and well defined in the C++ standards. > > Here is paragraph 4 of section 1.9 (Program execution) of the C++ > standard. > > Certain other operations are described in this International > Standard as undefined (for example, the effect of dereferencing > the null pointer). [Note: this International Standard imposes no > requirements on the behavior of programs that contain undefined > behavior. ] > > If you think that dereferencing the null pointer is defined, you > are thinking of a programming language other than C++. In C++ a null pointer IS a valid object. I don't give a fuck what you think about dereferncing it. > > [snip] < snip> > Readers of this newsgroup should see exactly what is written in the > C++ standard. That is why I have included complete paragraphs from > it in my posts. The majority of readers in this newsgroup are, like you, complete idiots and I don't give a fuck what they think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-09 22:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5q22q65fqe1u6huu0jk6oa7hu6jcqp3ubh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3362 |
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 20:32:55 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >news:slrniq18hf.2uti.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >> On 2011-04-08, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here >>>>>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: >>>>> >>>>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>> created. >>>>> Some >>>>> objects are polymorphic". >>>> >>>> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been >>>> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not >>>> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be >>>> polymorphic, but an array is not. >>>> >>> The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it was >>> posted becuase it says: >>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>> created." >> >> When reading a quote from a programming language standard, it is a >> good idea to read the whole quote, including parts that establishes >> the context in which the quote applies. In this case the context >> is polymorphic objects. >> >Are you a complete fucking idiot? !!! I don't think he is at all, but I am certain you are and I can prove it. > >"1.7 The C+ + object model [intro.object] >1 The constructs in a C + + program create, destroy, refer to, access, and >manipulate objects. An object is a >region of storage. An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a >newexpression >(5.3.4) or by the implementation >(12.2) when needed. The properties of an object are determined when the >object is created. An >object can have a name (3). An object has a storage duration (3.7) which >influences its lifetime (3.8). An >object has a type (3.9). The term object type refers to the type with which >the object is created. Some >objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates information >associated with each such object >that makes it possible to determine that object's type during program >execution. For other objects, the >interpretation of the values found therein is determined by the type of the >expressions (5) used to access >them" > >*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >created. **** PERIOD > > >Its talking about fucking objects, NOT fucking only polymorphic objects, you >dumb fucking twat. You have used polymorphism as the main point for your argument since you cited the Standard out of context. You surely don't understand this, but I make a point of showing it here for the world to see, Here was your statement and supporting logic. "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created. >Some objects are polymorphic". Out of an entire paragraph you chose to include a statement followed by a reference to polymorphism that has abbsolutely no bearing on your assertion. You're a proven idiot, but the irrefutable proof is below. >>> An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by some >>> pointer that points to it. >>> You said : >>> "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type." >>> This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined by a >>> type of pointer, pointing to it. >> >> The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the >> pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it >> is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object >> that is accessed. >> >In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to it. > You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept that >you fucking twat. Getting back to Paul's favorite example: int* p = new int[5]; Using your very own logic from your above statement: >*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >created. **** PERIOD For the above case of p which IS IN FACT an object: p was "created" (as you so sloppily like to say), as a "pointer to int". Using your very own logic from your other statement: >In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to it. p was declared and initialized as a pointer to int so it is in fact a pointer to int and nothing else as per your very own statements. >The majority of readers in this newsgroup are, like you, complete idiots and >I don't give a fuck what they think. Your blatant disregard for all readers, not just the majority of this newsgroup makes you the idiot. You have no self control, and your logic is dim. Besides, it sounds more like that you are simply jealous of those that actually can think. Proving you wrong is trivial now since you are proving yourself wrong all on your own. Fail on, Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 03:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tQ8op.18027$2o1.17493@newsfe18.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3370 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5q22q65fqe1u6huu0jk6oa7hu6jcqp3ubh@4ax.com... > On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 20:32:55 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >>news:slrniq18hf.2uti.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >>> On 2011-04-08, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here >>>>>>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>>>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>> created. >>>>>> Some >>>>>> objects are polymorphic". >>>>> >>>>> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been >>>>> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not >>>>> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be >>>>> polymorphic, but an array is not. >>>>> >>>> The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it was >>>> posted becuase it says: >>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>> created." >>> >>> When reading a quote from a programming language standard, it is a >>> good idea to read the whole quote, including parts that establishes >>> the context in which the quote applies. In this case the context >>> is polymorphic objects. >>> >>Are you a complete fucking idiot? !!! > I don't think he is at all, but I am certain you are and I can prove it. > >> >>"1.7 The C+ + object model [intro.object] >>1 The constructs in a C + + program create, destroy, refer to, access, and >>manipulate objects. An object is a >>region of storage. An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a >>newexpression >>(5.3.4) or by the implementation >>(12.2) when needed. The properties of an object are determined when the >>object is created. An >>object can have a name (3). An object has a storage duration (3.7) which >>influences its lifetime (3.8). An >>object has a type (3.9). The term object type refers to the type with >>which >>the object is created. Some >>objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates information >>associated with each such object >>that makes it possible to determine that object's type during program >>execution. For other objects, the >>interpretation of the values found therein is determined by the type of >>the >>expressions (5) used to access >>them" >> >>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>created. **** PERIOD >> >> >>Its talking about fucking objects, NOT fucking only polymorphic objects, >>you >>dumb fucking twat. > You have used polymorphism as the main point for your argument since you > cited > the Standard out of context. You surely don't understand this, but I make > a > point of showing it here for the world to see, > > Here was your statement and supporting logic. > > "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created. >>Some objects are polymorphic". > Out of an entire paragraph you chose to include a statement followed by a > reference to polymorphism that has abbsolutely no bearing on your > assertion. > You're a proven idiot, but the irrefutable proof is below. > >>>> An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by some >>>> pointer that points to it. >>>> You said : >>>> "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type." >>>> This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined by >>>> a >>>> type of pointer, pointing to it. >>> >>> The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the >>> pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it >>> is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object >>> that is accessed. >>> >>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to it. >> You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept that >>you fucking twat. > > Getting back to Paul's favorite example: > int* p = new int[5]; > > Using your very own logic from your above statement: >>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>created. **** PERIOD > > For the above case of p which IS IN FACT an object: > p was "created" (as you so sloppily like to say), as a "pointer to int". > > Using your very own logic from your other statement: >>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to it. > p was declared and initialized as a pointer to int so it is in fact a > pointer to > int and nothing else as per your very own statements. > No an array was created you fucking wrong idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-09 23:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ft62q65rn87n0p42qcqilodtp92neqb23h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3371 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 03:44:39 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:5q22q65fqe1u6huu0jk6oa7hu6jcqp3ubh@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 20:32:55 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> >>>"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message >>>news:slrniq18hf.2uti.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net... >>>> On 2011-04-08, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here >>>>>>>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>>>>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>>> created. >>>>>>> Some >>>>>>> objects are polymorphic". >>>>>> >>>>>> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been >>>>>> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not >>>>>> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be >>>>>> polymorphic, but an array is not. >>>>>> >>>>> The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it was >>>>> posted becuase it says: >>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>> created." >>>> >>>> When reading a quote from a programming language standard, it is a >>>> good idea to read the whole quote, including parts that establishes >>>> the context in which the quote applies. In this case the context >>>> is polymorphic objects. >>>> >>>Are you a complete fucking idiot? !!! >> I don't think he is at all, but I am certain you are and I can prove it. >> >>> >>>"1.7 The C+ + object model [intro.object] >>>1 The constructs in a C + + program create, destroy, refer to, access, and >>>manipulate objects. An object is a >>>region of storage. An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a >>>newexpression >>>(5.3.4) or by the implementation >>>(12.2) when needed. The properties of an object are determined when the >>>object is created. An >>>object can have a name (3). An object has a storage duration (3.7) which >>>influences its lifetime (3.8). An >>>object has a type (3.9). The term object type refers to the type with >>>which >>>the object is created. Some >>>objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates information >>>associated with each such object >>>that makes it possible to determine that object's type during program >>>execution. For other objects, the >>>interpretation of the values found therein is determined by the type of >>>the >>>expressions (5) used to access >>>them" >>> >>>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>created. **** PERIOD >>> >>> >>>Its talking about fucking objects, NOT fucking only polymorphic objects, >>>you >>>dumb fucking twat. >> You have used polymorphism as the main point for your argument since you >> cited >> the Standard out of context. You surely don't understand this, but I make >> a >> point of showing it here for the world to see, >> >> Here was your statement and supporting logic. >> >> "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created. >>>Some objects are polymorphic". >> Out of an entire paragraph you chose to include a statement followed by a >> reference to polymorphism that has abbsolutely no bearing on your >> assertion. >> You're a proven idiot, but the irrefutable proof is below. >> >>>>> An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by some >>>>> pointer that points to it. >>>>> You said : >>>>> "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type." >>>>> This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined by >>>>> a >>>>> type of pointer, pointing to it. >>>> >>>> The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the >>>> pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it >>>> is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object >>>> that is accessed. >>>> >>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to it. >>> You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept that >>>you fucking twat. >> >> Getting back to Paul's favorite example: >> int* p = new int[5]; >> >> Using your very own logic from your above statement: >>>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>created. **** PERIOD >> >> For the above case of p which IS IN FACT an object: >> p was "created" (as you so sloppily like to say), as a "pointer to int". >> >> Using your very own logic from your other statement: >>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to it. >> p was declared and initialized as a pointer to int so it is in fact a >> pointer to >> int and nothing else as per your very own statements. >> >No an array was created you fucking wrong idiot. You are very confused. An array of int was _allocated_ (assuming success). The object returned by new was not an array, it was, in fact, an object of type "pointer to int". This was the object that was used to "initialize" p. The fact that you say, "created" is most indicative that you are not capable of speaking intelligently about C++. Your confusion is yours and yours alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 13:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rrhop.25908$Hl6.25620@newsfe23.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3372 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ft62q65rn87n0p42qcqilodtp92neqb23h@4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 03:44:39 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here >>>>>>>>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>>>>>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>>>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>>>> created. >>>>>>>> Some >>>>>>>> objects are polymorphic". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been >>>>>>> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not >>>>>>> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be >>>>>>> polymorphic, but an array is not. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it >>>>>> was >>>>>> posted becuase it says: >>>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>> created." >>>>> >>>>> When reading a quote from a programming language standard, it is a >>>>> good idea to read the whole quote, including parts that establishes >>>>> the context in which the quote applies. In this case the context >>>>> is polymorphic objects. >>>>> >>>>Are you a complete fucking idiot? !!! >>> I don't think he is at all, but I am certain you are and I can prove it. >>> >>>> >>>>"1.7 The C+ + object model [intro.object] >>>>1 The constructs in a C + + program create, destroy, refer to, access, >>>>and >>>>manipulate objects. An object is a >>>>region of storage. An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a >>>>newexpression >>>>(5.3.4) or by the implementation >>>>(12.2) when needed. The properties of an object are determined when the >>>>object is created. An >>>>object can have a name (3). An object has a storage duration (3.7) which >>>>influences its lifetime (3.8). An >>>>object has a type (3.9). The term object type refers to the type with >>>>which >>>>the object is created. Some >>>>objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates information >>>>associated with each such object >>>>that makes it possible to determine that object's type during program >>>>execution. For other objects, the >>>>interpretation of the values found therein is determined by the type of >>>>the >>>>expressions (5) used to access >>>>them" >>>> >>>>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>created. **** PERIOD >>>> >>>> >>>>Its talking about fucking objects, NOT fucking only polymorphic objects, >>>>you >>>>dumb fucking twat. >>> You have used polymorphism as the main point for your argument since you >>> cited >>> the Standard out of context. You surely don't understand this, but I >>> make >>> a >>> point of showing it here for the world to see, >>> >>> Here was your statement and supporting logic. >>> >>> "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>>1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>>"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>created. >>>>Some objects are polymorphic". >>> Out of an entire paragraph you chose to include a statement followed by >>> a >>> reference to polymorphism that has abbsolutely no bearing on your >>> assertion. >>> You're a proven idiot, but the irrefutable proof is below. >>> >>>>>> An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by >>>>>> some >>>>>> pointer that points to it. >>>>>> You said : >>>>>> "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type." >>>>>> This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined >>>>>> by >>>>>> a >>>>>> type of pointer, pointing to it. >>>>> >>>>> The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the >>>>> pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it >>>>> is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object >>>>> that is accessed. >>>>> >>>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to >>>>it. >>>> You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept >>>> that >>>>you fucking twat. >>> >>> Getting back to Paul's favorite example: >>> int* p = new int[5]; >>> >>> Using your very own logic from your above statement: >>>>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>created. **** PERIOD >>> >>> For the above case of p which IS IN FACT an object: >>> p was "created" (as you so sloppily like to say), as a "pointer to int". >>> >>> Using your very own logic from your other statement: >>>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to >>>>it. >>> p was declared and initialized as a pointer to int so it is in fact a >>> pointer to >>> int and nothing else as per your very own statements. >>> >>No an array was created you fucking wrong idiot. > You are very confused. An array of int was _allocated_ (assuming success). > > The object returned by new was not an array, it was, in fact, an object of > type > "pointer to int". This was the object that was used to "initialize" p. > The object/s created by new is a fucking array, you fucking idiot. > The fact that you say, "created" is most indicative that you are not > capable of > speaking intelligently about C++. Your confusion is yours and yours > alone. I use created just like the C++ standards do, you fucking idiot. 1.7 The C++ Object Model states: "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 10:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1bb3q6tfgpgp5e10gbt2di8175b4g46skd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3384 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:32:00 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:ft62q65rn87n0p42qcqilodtp92neqb23h@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 03:44:39 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type. Here >>>>>>>>>> is paragraph 1 of section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>>>>>>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>>>>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>>>>> created. >>>>>>>>> Some >>>>>>>>> objects are polymorphic". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been >>>>>>>> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not >>>>>>>> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be >>>>>>>> polymorphic, but an array is not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it >>>>>>> was >>>>>>> posted becuase it says: >>>>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>>> created." >>>>>> >>>>>> When reading a quote from a programming language standard, it is a >>>>>> good idea to read the whole quote, including parts that establishes >>>>>> the context in which the quote applies. In this case the context >>>>>> is polymorphic objects. >>>>>> >>>>>Are you a complete fucking idiot? !!! >>>> I don't think he is at all, but I am certain you are and I can prove it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"1.7 The C+ + object model [intro.object] >>>>>1 The constructs in a C + + program create, destroy, refer to, access, >>>>>and >>>>>manipulate objects. An object is a >>>>>region of storage. An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a >>>>>newexpression >>>>>(5.3.4) or by the implementation >>>>>(12.2) when needed. The properties of an object are determined when the >>>>>object is created. An >>>>>object can have a name (3). An object has a storage duration (3.7) which >>>>>influences its lifetime (3.8). An >>>>>object has a type (3.9). The term object type refers to the type with >>>>>which >>>>>the object is created. Some >>>>>objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates information >>>>>associated with each such object >>>>>that makes it possible to determine that object's type during program >>>>>execution. For other objects, the >>>>>interpretation of the values found therein is determined by the type of >>>>>the >>>>>expressions (5) used to access >>>>>them" >>>>> >>>>>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>created. **** PERIOD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Its talking about fucking objects, NOT fucking only polymorphic objects, >>>>>you >>>>>dumb fucking twat. >>>> You have used polymorphism as the main point for your argument since you >>>> cited >>>> the Standard out of context. You surely don't understand this, but I >>>> make >>>> a >>>> point of showing it here for the world to see, >>>> >>>> Here was your statement and supporting logic. >>>> >>>> "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to. >>>>>1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>>>"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>created. >>>>>Some objects are polymorphic". >>>> Out of an entire paragraph you chose to include a statement followed by >>>> a >>>> reference to polymorphism that has abbsolutely no bearing on your >>>> assertion. >>>> You're a proven idiot, but the irrefutable proof is below. >>>> >>>>>>> An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> pointer that points to it. >>>>>>> You said : >>>>>>> "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type." >>>>>>> This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> type of pointer, pointing to it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the >>>>>> pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it >>>>>> is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object >>>>>> that is accessed. >>>>>> >>>>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to >>>>>it. >>>>> You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept >>>>> that >>>>>you fucking twat. >>>> >>>> Getting back to Paul's favorite example: >>>> int* p = new int[5]; >>>> >>>> Using your very own logic from your above statement: >>>>>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>created. **** PERIOD >>>> >>>> For the above case of p which IS IN FACT an object: >>>> p was "created" (as you so sloppily like to say), as a "pointer to int". >>>> >>>> Using your very own logic from your other statement: >>>>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to >>>>>it. >>>> p was declared and initialized as a pointer to int so it is in fact a >>>> pointer to >>>> int and nothing else as per your very own statements. >>>> >>>No an array was created you fucking wrong idiot. >> You are very confused. An array of int was _allocated_ (assuming success). >> >> The object returned by new was not an array, it was, in fact, an object of >> type >> "pointer to int". This was the object that was used to "initialize" p. >> >The object/s created by new is a fucking array, you fucking idiot. > >> The fact that you say, "created" is most indicative that you are not >> capable of >> speaking intelligently about C++. Your confusion is yours and yours >> alone. > >I use created just like the C++ standards do, you fucking idiot. >1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is created." Amazing that you are only capable of talking about the Standard, yet you never seem to actually read what it says beyond a single word or two that in your mind would seem to support your skewed views. I realize now that when you say that you are not going to read my posts, what you really mean is that you are unable to understand what you read, so you can't regardless of your intent. Nevertheless, I will properly cite the Standard. From 1.8 The C++ object model: "An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a new-expression (5.3.4)" ... Since we are talking about a new-expression we will refer to your favorite example: int* p = new int[5] which is well-defined in 5.3.4. which you so eloquently state: >The object/s created by new is a fucking array, you fucking idiot. 5.3.4 New 1. "The new-expression attempts to create an object of the type-id (8.1) or new-type-id to which it is applied. The type of that object is the allocated type. This type shall be a complete object type, but not an abstract class type or array thereof" ... ---> The type of that object is the _allocated_ type. 5. "When the allocated object is an array (that is, the direct-new-declarator syntax is used or the new-type-id or type-id denotes an array type), the new-expression yields a pointer to the initial element (if any) of the array. [Note: both new int and new int[10] have type int* and the type of new int[i][10] is int (*)[10]. ] ---> both new int and new int[10] have type " int * " The type of object _yielded_ by the new-expression is "pointer to int". You can say "an array was created" until you are blue in the face. The Standard, however, defines explicitly what "created" means for the specific case of the pointer initialization / array allocation example. int* p = new int[5]; The object type allocated is "array of int" The object type yielded by new is "pointer to int". The object type of p is "pointer to int" and is initialized to the address of the _singular_ first element of the array (if any); Once again you choose to use a term such as "created" in a lose way rather than a way where it is technically applicable to the underlying context for which your intent is so obvious. >The object/s created by new is a fucking array, you fucking idiot. On its own that would not be such a huge issue, but that's not all you are saying. You are using that for a platform to assert that p points to an array and that is simply not the case. The Standard defines explicitly what p points to. No doubt you do this to manipulate an argument since you certainly have no logical means for actually winning it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 18:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <QNlop.11465$KZ7.5108@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3386 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1bb3q6tfgpgp5e10gbt2di8175b4g46skd@4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:32:00 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: <snip> >>>>>>> The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the >>>>>>> pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it >>>>>>> is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object >>>>>>> that is accessed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to >>>>>>it. >>>>>> You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept >>>>>> that >>>>>>you fucking twat. >>>>> >>>>> Getting back to Paul's favorite example: >>>>> int* p = new int[5]; >>>>> >>>>> Using your very own logic from your above statement: >>>>>>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>>created. **** PERIOD >>>>> >>>>> For the above case of p which IS IN FACT an object: >>>>> p was "created" (as you so sloppily like to say), as a "pointer to >>>>> int". >>>>> >>>>> Using your very own logic from your other statement: >>>>>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to >>>>>>it. >>>>> p was declared and initialized as a pointer to int so it is in fact a >>>>> pointer to >>>>> int and nothing else as per your very own statements. >>>>> >>>>No an array was created you fucking wrong idiot. >>> You are very confused. An array of int was _allocated_ (assuming >>> success). >>> >>> The object returned by new was not an array, it was, in fact, an object >>> of >>> type >>> "pointer to int". This was the object that was used to "initialize" p. >>> >>The object/s created by new is a fucking array, you fucking idiot. >> >>> The fact that you say, "created" is most indicative that you are not >>> capable of >>> speaking intelligently about C++. Your confusion is yours and yours >>> alone. >> >>I use created just like the C++ standards do, you fucking idiot. >>1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>created." > > Amazing that you are only capable of talking about the Standard, yet you > never > seem to actually read what it says beyond a single word or two that in > your mind > would seem to support your skewed views. > > I realize now that when you say that you are not going to read my posts, > what > you really mean is that you are unable to understand what you read, so you > can't > regardless of your intent. Nevertheless, I will properly cite the > Standard. > > From 1.8 The C++ object model: > "An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a new-expression (5.3.4)" > ... > > Since we are talking about a new-expression we will refer to your favorite > example: int* p = new int[5] which is well-defined in 5.3.4. > > which you so eloquently state: >>The object/s created by new is a fucking array, you fucking idiot. > > 5.3.4 New > > 1. "The new-expression attempts to create an object of the type-id (8.1) > or > new-type-id to which it is applied. The type of that object is the > allocated > type. This type shall be a complete object type, but not an abstract > class type or array thereof" ... > > ---> The type of that object is the _allocated_ type. > > 5. "When the allocated object is an array (that is, the > direct-new-declarator > syntax is used or the new-type-id or type-id denotes an array type), the > new-expression yields a pointer to the initial element (if any) of the > array. [Note: both new int and new int[10] have type int* and the type of > new > int[i][10] is int (*)[10]. ] > > ---> both new int and new int[10] have type " int * " > > The type of object _yielded_ by the new-expression is "pointer to int". > > You can say "an array was created" until you are blue in the face. The > Standard, however, defines explicitly what "created" means for the > specific case > of the pointer initialization / array allocation example. > Yes I can because new int[5] creates an array. I have no more to say to a fucking idiotic, serial misinterpreter like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 17:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tn74q6h7qt6ecoav04ehdbp8vgk9i4lc45@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3389 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:29:11 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1bb3q6tfgpgp5e10gbt2di8175b4g46skd@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:32:00 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: ><snip> >>>>>>>> The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the >>>>>>>> pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it >>>>>>>> is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object >>>>>>>> that is accessed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to >>>>>>>it. >>>>>>> You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>you fucking twat. >>>>>> >>>>>> Getting back to Paul's favorite example: >>>>>> int* p = new int[5]; >>>>>> >>>>>> Using your very own logic from your above statement: >>>>>>>*****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>>>>>created. **** PERIOD >>>>>> >>>>>> For the above case of p which IS IN FACT an object: >>>>>> p was "created" (as you so sloppily like to say), as a "pointer to >>>>>> int". >>>>>> >>>>>> Using your very own logic from your other statement: >>>>>>>In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to >>>>>>>it. >>>>>> p was declared and initialized as a pointer to int so it is in fact a >>>>>> pointer to >>>>>> int and nothing else as per your very own statements. >>>>>> >>>>>No an array was created you fucking wrong idiot. >>>> You are very confused. An array of int was _allocated_ (assuming >>>> success). >>>> >>>> The object returned by new was not an array, it was, in fact, an object >>>> of >>>> type >>>> "pointer to int". This was the object that was used to "initialize" p. >>>> >>>The object/s created by new is a fucking array, you fucking idiot. >>> >>>> The fact that you say, "created" is most indicative that you are not >>>> capable of >>>> speaking intelligently about C++. Your confusion is yours and yours >>>> alone. >>> >>>I use created just like the C++ standards do, you fucking idiot. >>>1.7 The C++ Object Model states: >>>"The term object type refers to the type with which the object is >>>created." >> >> Amazing that you are only capable of talking about the Standard, yet you >> never >> seem to actually read what it says beyond a single word or two that in >> your mind >> would seem to support your skewed views. >> >> I realize now that when you say that you are not going to read my posts, >> what >> you really mean is that you are unable to understand what you read, so you >> can't >> regardless of your intent. Nevertheless, I will properly cite the >> Standard. >> >> From 1.8 The C++ object model: >> "An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a new-expression (5.3.4)" >> ... >> >> Since we are talking about a new-expression we will refer to your favorite >> example: int* p = new int[5] which is well-defined in 5.3.4. >> >> which you so eloquently state: >>>The object/s created by new is a fucking array, you fucking idiot. >> >> 5.3.4 New >> >> 1. "The new-expression attempts to create an object of the type-id (8.1) >> or >> new-type-id to which it is applied. The type of that object is the >> allocated >> type. This type shall be a complete object type, but not an abstract >> class type or array thereof" ... >> >> ---> The type of that object is the _allocated_ type. >> >> 5. "When the allocated object is an array (that is, the >> direct-new-declarator >> syntax is used or the new-type-id or type-id denotes an array type), the >> new-expression yields a pointer to the initial element (if any) of the >> array. [Note: both new int and new int[10] have type int* and the type of >> new >> int[i][10] is int (*)[10]. ] >> >> ---> both new int and new int[10] have type " int * " >> >> The type of object _yielded_ by the new-expression is "pointer to int". >> >> You can say "an array was created" until you are blue in the face. The >> Standard, however, defines explicitly what "created" means for the >> specific case >> of the pointer initialization / array allocation example. >> > >Yes I can because new int[5] creates an array. Array of what? uninitialized platform-defined values? As far as C++ is concerned the type of allocation is array of int of which p points to the first element of, assuming the allocation was successful. In a conversation with the likes of you, nothing less precise is acceptable since you repeatedly jump to false conclusions using ambiguous terminology as your platform. > >I have no more to say to a fucking idiotic, serial misinterpreter like you. Having nothing else to say would imply you actually had said something meaningful to begin with. Many responders have given you ample opportunity to present your debates and arrive at your conclusions logically. Yet all you've done is alienate yourself by spouting off in a long series of posts with false, or at best, "technically imprecise" statements along with vulgar retort. to summarize: - an array is still not a pointer - int pointers still do not point to array objects - new int[5] still is not a multidimensional array and still no citation from the Standard with regards to multidimensional arrays applies to it - using loose terminology to avoid technical responsibility for what you post still is proof that you are incompetent
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 12:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniq6f99.1u0k.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3362 |
On 2011-04-09, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrniq18hf.2uti.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> On 2011-04-08, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>>>> No, a pointer type doesn't define what is pointed to.
>>>>> 1.7 The C++ Object Model states:
>>>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is
>>>>> created.
>>>>> Some
>>>>> objects are polymorphic".
>>>>
>>>> Although some objects are polymorphic, this discussion has been
>>>> about arrays. Arrays are not polymorphic; an array type does not
>>>> inherit from another type. The element type of an array may be
>>>> polymorphic, but an array is not.
>>>>
>>> The quote wasn't posted because it mentioned polymorphic types, it was
>>> posted becuase it says:
>>> "The term object type refers to the type with which the object is
>>> created."
>>
>> When reading a quote from a programming language standard, it is a
>> good idea to read the whole quote, including parts that establishes
>> the context in which the quote applies. In this case the context
>> is polymorphic objects.
>>
> Are you a complete fucking idiot? !!!
No, I'm not that.
> "1.7 The C+ + object model [intro.object]
> 1 The constructs in a C + + program create, destroy, refer to, access, and
> manipulate objects. An object is a
> region of storage. An object is created by a definition (3.1), by a
> newexpression
> (5.3.4) or by the implementation
> (12.2) when needed. The properties of an object are determined when the
> object is created. An
> object can have a name (3). An object has a storage duration (3.7) which
> influences its lifetime (3.8). An
> object has a type (3.9). The term object type refers to the type with which
> the object is created. Some
> objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates information
> associated with each such object
> that makes it possible to determine that object's type during program
> execution. For other objects, the
> interpretation of the values found therein is determined by the type of the
> expressions (5) used to access
> them"
>
> *****The term object type refers to the type with which the object is
> created. **** PERIOD
>
>
> Its talking about fucking objects, NOT fucking only polymorphic objects, you
> dumb fucking twat.
No, I'm not that, either.
>>> An objects' type is defined when its created, it is not defined by some
>>> pointer that points to it.
>>> You said :
>>> "In C++ what a pointer points to depends on the pointer type."
>>> This is complete nonsense because a pointed to object is not defined by a
>>> type of pointer, pointing to it.
>>
>> The type of pointer determines the type of value obtained when the
>> pointer is dereferenced, the change in the pointer value when it
>> is incremented, and the non-virtual member of a polymorphic object
>> that is accessed.
>>
> In C++ an objects' type is NOT determined by a pointer that points to it.
> You were fucking wrong , you ARE fucking wrong and you cannot accept that
> you fucking twat.
No, I'm not that, either.
The quote you gave above from the C++ Object Model includes the
following sentences.
Some objects are polymorphic (10.3); the implementation generates
information associated with each such object that makes it possible
to determine that object's type during program execution. For
other objects, the interpretation of the values found therein is
determined by the type of the expressions (5) used to access them
With a value of a non-polymorphic type, such as an array, the
standard states: the interpretaion of the values is determined by
the type of the expressions used to access type value. In other
words, for a pointer to a non-polymorphic type, the pointer type
determines the type of the result of dereferencing the pointer.
Here is a program that outputs whether the typeid of a dereferenced
pointer and the typeid of what it points to are the same for a
polymorphic object and for an array.
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
struct Base {virtual void foo() {}};
struct Derived : public Base {};
static void outputWhetherSame(const std::type_info& ti1, const char* n1,
const std::type_info& ti2, const char* n2) {
const char *relStr = (ti1 == ti2) ? "==" : "!=";
std::cout<<"typeid("<<n1<<")"<<relStr<<"typeid("<<n2<<")"<<
" ("<<ti1.name()<<relStr<<ti2.name()<<")"<<std::endl;
}
int main() {
Derived d;
Base* pb = &d;
int a1i[5], *pi = a1i;
outputWhetherSame(typeid(*pb), "*pb", typeid(d), "d");
outputWhetherSame(typeid(*pi), "*pi", typeid(a1i), "a1i");
}
The output that I get is that the typeids are the same for a
polymorphic object, but not for an array. Given the declaration
int a1i[5], *pi = a1i;
pi does not point to an array; pi points to an int.
What I am is someone who accepts exactly what is in the standard.
>>>>>>>> According to the C++ standard, "int (*p3i)[3]" declares a "pointer
>>>>>>>> to an array of 3 int".
>>>>> Its TYPE is pointer to array. What it points to can be null, or almost
>>>>> anything.
>>>>> You are obviously confusing its type with what it points to.
>>>>
>>>> "int (*p3i)[3]" declares pointer to an array of 3 int.
>>> No it declares a pointer of type poiner to array. It doesn't point to
>>> anything valid until its been initialised.
>>>
>>>> Dereferencing
>>>> that pointer results in an array of 3 int.
>>> Dereferencing it results in UB.
>>
>> That's right, a pointer variable does not point to anything valid
>> until its value is set. Given the declaration
>>
> So you were wrong, once again you were speaking utter bullshit.
Let me see if I have this right. it is utter bullshit that a pointer
variable does not point to anything value until the value is set?
This is not the first time that you have omitted words or sentences
from what I have written and used what remained out of context.
Here are the lines that you omitted at this point.
int a3i[3], (*p3i)[3] = &a3i;
that sets the value of p3i and the value obtained by deferencing p3i
is defined. With that initialization, evaluating (*p3i) and a3i
result in the same value.
>>>>>> That array has one dimension.
>>>>>>> No it doesn't the standard clearly says that is a TYPE. The standard
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> not define that it points to a 1d array. The standard actually
>>>>>>> implies
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> type points to a 2d array, in the section about pointers to arrays..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See the above quote from section 5.3.1 of the C++ standard about the
>>>>>> unary * operator, which contains: "If the type of the expression is
>>>>>> a pointer to T, the type of the result is T." A pointer to a 1d
>>>>>> array points to a 1d array. If a pointer to a 1d array could point
>>>>>> to a 2d array, the statement
>>>>> The above is describing the result of dereferencing a pointer of type
>>>>> T.
>>>>> This does not define what a pointer points to , a pointer can be null
>>>>> and
>>>>> point to nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour. The result of
>>>> dereferencing a valid pointer to T is a value of type T.
>>> A null pointer is a valid object and well defined in the C++ standards.
>>
>> Here is paragraph 4 of section 1.9 (Program execution) of the C++
>> standard.
>>
>> Certain other operations are described in this International
>> Standard as undefined (for example, the effect of dereferencing
>> the null pointer). [Note: this International Standard imposes no
>> requirements on the behavior of programs that contain undefined
>> behavior. ]
>>
>> If you think that dereferencing the null pointer is defined, you
>> are thinking of a programming language other than C++.
>
> In C++ a null pointer IS a valid object. I don't give a fuck what you think
> about dereferncing it.
In this sequence of followups:
- I wrote: "Dereferencing the null pointer is undefined behaviour."
- You replied: "A null pointer is a valid object and well defined in
the C++ standards."
- I replied with a paragraph from the C++ standard that gave
dereferencing of the null pointer as an example of an undefined
operation.
If you don't care what the effect of dereferencing the null pointer
is, why did you followup about it?
[snip]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web