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 4 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 21 Next page →
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-19 13:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrniqrm4f.2usb.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #3976 |
On 2011-04-18, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrniqou48.1pof.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
[snip]
>> What you call pointer-type determines what a C++ pointer points
>> to. Here is paragraph 1 of section 5.3 of the C++ standard:
>>
>> The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to
>> which it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or
>> a pointer to a function type and the result is an lvalue
>> referring to the object or function to which the expression
>> points. If the type of the expression is pointer to T, the
>> type of the result is T. [Note: a pointer to an incomplete
>> type (other than cv void ) can be dereferenced. The lvalue thus
>> obtained can be used in limited ways (to initialize a reference,
>> for example); this lvalue must not be converted to an rvalue,
>> see 4.1. ]
>>
>> I accept exactly what is in the C++ standard. Given the declaration
>>
>> int *p = new int[4];
>>
>> p is a pointer to an int and the result of *p is an int. What you
>> wrote, "p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints", is incorrect; the
>> result of *p is not an array of 4 ints..
>>
> No p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints.
> When it is dereferenced it returns an int because the pointer-type is int*,
> which complies with this quotation from the standards on dereferencing.
The fact that derefencing it returns an int indicates that it is a
pointer to int. Derefencing a pointer to an array of 4 ints would
return an array of 4 ints.
> You cannot get a pointer that, when dereferenced, returns 4 ints. Or 40 ints
> or whatever size the array is.
A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
int main() {
int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] = &a1i;
std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
}
The (implementation defined) values returned by typeid(a1i).name()
and typeid(*pa1i).name() are the same. The output indicates that
both ai1 and *pai1 are arrays of 4 ints.
[snip]
>> The fact that the result of incrementing p is a pointer to the next
>> int address indicates that p is a pointer to an int, not a pointer
>> to an array of 4 ints.
> No this is incorrect a pointer of type int* can point to both a single int
> and an array of ints.
If an int* could point to an array of int, the following statement
that tries to initialize an int* with a pointer to an array of int
would be allowed, but it isn't.
int a1i[4], *pi = &a1i;
>>
>> In the declaration
>>
>> int a2i[3][4], (*p1i)[4] = a2i;
>>
>> p1i is a pointer to an array of 4 ints.
>
> But when its dereferenced in doesn't return 4 ints. It is not a pointer to
> an array(entity) of 4 ints, it is a pointer to array-type.
What derefencing p1i retuns is an array of 4 ints. You omitted the
word "array" from what I wrote.
> When an array is converted to a pointer it is converted to a pointer-type of
> an (n-1) dimensionsal array.
That's right for multidimensional arrays. For example, when the
conversion is done on a 2d array the result is a pointer to a 1d
array.
>> Incrementing it results in
>> a pointer to the next array of 4 ints. The subscript operator can
>> be applied to the result of dereferencing p1i, as the subscript
>> operator can be applied to any array in C++.
>>
>> The result of the initialization expression a2i is given in
>> paragraph 7 of section 8.3.4 of the C++ standard:
>>
>> A consistent rule is followed for multidimensional arrays. If E
>> is an n-dimensional array of rank ixjx...xk, then E appearing in
>> an expression is converted to a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional
>> array with rank jx...xk. If the * operator, either explicitly or
>> implicitly as a result of subscripting, is applied to this pointer,
>> the result is the pointed to (n - 1)-dimensional array, which
>> itself is immediately converted into a pointer.
> The above clearly expalins how arrays are converted to pointers in C++.
> A 1dim array such as int arr[16], is converted to a pointer type int*.
> A 2dim array such as int arr[3][16] is converted to a pointer type int
> (*)[16].
>
>> I accept exactly what is in the standard. The 2-dimensional array
>> a2i in the initialization expression is converted to a pointer to a
>> 1-dimensional array. As a result of the initialzation, p1i, a
>> pointer to a 1-dimensional array, points to that 1-dimensional array.
>>
> If a 2d array is converted to a pointer , the pointer points to a 2d array.
> The pointed to TYPE is a 1d array and you are obviously confusing this with
> with the pointed to entity.
According to the C++ standard an n-dimensional array is converted to
a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional array. The result of that
conversion on a 2d array is a pointer to 1d array. A pointer to a
1d array points to a 1d array, not to a 2d array. You appear to be
confusing C++ with a programming language in which arrays are
polymorphic over dimensions.
>> [snip]
>>
>>> So according to you this is incorrect:
>>>
>>> "The pointer declaration char *p, on the other hand, requests a place
>>> which
>>> holds a pointer, to be known by the name ``p''. This pointer can point
>>> almost anywhere: to any char, or to any contiguous array of chars, or
>>> nowhere "
>>>
>>> Im sorry but I agree with the above quotation , and if you disagree then
>>> I
>>> diasagree with you and I think it is more likely that you are incorrect
>>> than
>>> the source of this quotation.
>>
>> I don't disagree that a char* can point almost anywhere. However,
>> no matter where it points, an operation on a char* treats what the
>> char* points to as a char.
>
> But you disagree that char* can point to an array? According to you *char
> returns only one char and not multiple chars therefore it is incorrect to
> say a char* can point to an array of chars. So you must disagree with the
> above.
When speaking at the level of detail of the C++ standard, a char*
can point to a char, not to an array of char. A term, such as "point
to" used in the context of a programming language does not necessarily
have the same meaning that it has in other contexts.
> You must also disagree with the following:
><quote ref=http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/glossary.html>
> "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char."
></quote>
>
> Now since you are in complete disagreement with highly respected authorities
> who were probably teaching C++ before you'd even heard of it. Do you not
> think that perhaps you're missing something important here?
What I disagree with is taking part of a glossary entry over what is
in the C++ standard. You omitted the remaining sentences of that
glossary entry: "Typically assumed to point to a C-style string.
Prefer a standard library string over a C-style string when you can.
TC++PL 2.3.3, 13.5.2."
The context of the glossary entry is about a C-style string. With a
C-style string the char* points to the first character of a zero
termainate array of characters. The glossary does not have a similar
entry for any other pointer type.
I accept what is in the C++ standard. If words of highly respected
authorities taken out of context disagree with what is in the C++
standard, I take with is in the C++ standard over those words.
> char* p= new char[16];
> p[3] = '3';
> The above treats the char pointer as an array, not as a single char.
p[3] is equivalent to *(p+3). When an int is added to a pointer to
char, the pointer to char behaves as a pointer to an element of an
array of char. An element of an array of char is a char, not an
array of char.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-20 17:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ZuTrp.20047$Vm5.2779@newsfe30.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4025 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:slrniqrm4f.2usb.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> [snip]
>
>>> What you call pointer-type determines what a C++ pointer points
>>> to. Here is paragraph 1 of section 5.3 of the C++ standard:
>>>
>>> The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to
>>> which it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or
>>> a pointer to a function type and the result is an lvalue
>>> referring to the object or function to which the expression
>>> points. If the type of the expression is pointer to T, the
>>> type of the result is T. [Note: a pointer to an incomplete
>>> type (other than cv void ) can be dereferenced. The lvalue thus
>>> obtained can be used in limited ways (to initialize a reference,
>>> for example); this lvalue must not be converted to an rvalue,
>>> see 4.1. ]
>>>
>>> I accept exactly what is in the C++ standard. Given the declaration
>>>
>>> int *p = new int[4];
>>>
>>> p is a pointer to an int and the result of *p is an int. What you
>>> wrote, "p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints", is incorrect; the
>>> result of *p is not an array of 4 ints..
>>>
>> No p is a pointer to an array of 4 ints.
>> When it is dereferenced it returns an int because the pointer-type is
>> int*,
>> which complies with this quotation from the standards on dereferencing.
>
> The fact that derefencing it returns an int indicates that it is a
> pointer to int. Derefencing a pointer to an array of 4 ints would
> return an array of 4 ints.
>
>> You cannot get a pointer that, when dereferenced, returns 4 ints. Or 40
>> ints
>> or whatever size the array is.
>
> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>
> #include <iostream>
> #include <typeinfo>
>
> int main() {
> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] = &a1i;
>
> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
> }
>
You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
For example:
int arr[40] ={0};
int* parr = arr;
int (*pparr)[40] = &arr;
std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t" << &arr[0] <<std::endl;
std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t" << *parr <<std::endl;
std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t" << *pparr <<std::endl;
Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a temporary
pointer.
The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an array-type
object.
> The (implementation defined) values returned by typeid(a1i).name()
> and typeid(*pa1i).name() are the same. The output indicates that
> both ai1 and *pai1 are arrays of 4 ints.
>
No it outputs the type, not the pointed to object.
*pa1i does not derefernece a pointer to the array, it dereferenes a pointer
to a tempory object of array-type.
Basically its a fancy pointer to a pointer.
> [snip]
>
>>> The fact that the result of incrementing p is a pointer to the next
>>> int address indicates that p is a pointer to an int, not a pointer
>>> to an array of 4 ints.
>> No this is incorrect a pointer of type int* can point to both a single
>> int
>> and an array of ints.
>
> If an int* could point to an array of int, the following statement
> that tries to initialize an int* with a pointer to an array of int
> would be allowed, but it isn't.
>
> int a1i[4], *pi = &a1i;
>
&ali is a pointer derivation from an array-type.
This creates a pointer that references an array-type, not the actual array
of ints.
To reference an array of ints, you need to use a pointer-type int*, and you
do not use the addressof& operator, like so:
int* p = a1i;
This pointer , when dereferenced, accesses the array like so:
p[int_offset];
The following pointer-type
int (*p)[4] =&a1i;
Does not access the array when dereferenced, it accesses an array-type
object. This object is bascially another pointer to the array.
Pointing to an array-type object, is not the same as pointing to the array
of ints. It points to AN array , yes an array-type object( which is
basically another pointer under the hood), it doesn't point to THE array of
ints.
>>>
>>> In the declaration
>>>
>>> int a2i[3][4], (*p1i)[4] = a2i;
>>>
>>> p1i is a pointer to an array of 4 ints.
>>
>> But when its dereferenced in doesn't return 4 ints. It is not a pointer
>> to
>> an array(entity) of 4 ints, it is a pointer to array-type.
>
> What derefencing p1i retuns is an array of 4 ints. You omitted the
> word "array" from what I wrote.
When you dereference p1i, you create a temporary array-type object the value
of which is another memory address. You do not get an array of 4 ints,
example:
int arr[4] = {1,2,3,4};
int (*p)[4] = &arr;
std::cout<< *p;
The type of p is an array-type, this means it points to an object of
array-type, not an array of int objects.
>
>> When an array is converted to a pointer it is converted to a pointer-type
>> of
>> an (n-1) dimensionsal array.
>
> That's right for multidimensional arrays. For example, when the
> conversion is done on a 2d array the result is a pointer to a 1d
> array.
>
Its the same for 1d arrays, its just a bit silly to say a (1-1)dimension
array, which is a single object.
>>> Incrementing it results in
>>> a pointer to the next array of 4 ints. The subscript operator can
>>> be applied to the result of dereferencing p1i, as the subscript
>>> operator can be applied to any array in C++.
>>>
>>> The result of the initialization expression a2i is given in
>>> paragraph 7 of section 8.3.4 of the C++ standard:
>>>
>>> A consistent rule is followed for multidimensional arrays. If E
>>> is an n-dimensional array of rank ixjx...xk, then E appearing in
>>> an expression is converted to a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional
>>> array with rank jx...xk. If the * operator, either explicitly or
>>> implicitly as a result of subscripting, is applied to this pointer,
>>> the result is the pointed to (n - 1)-dimensional array, which
>>> itself is immediately converted into a pointer.
>> The above clearly expalins how arrays are converted to pointers in C++.
>> A 1dim array such as int arr[16], is converted to a pointer type int*.
>> A 2dim array such as int arr[3][16] is converted to a pointer type int
>> (*)[16].
>>
>>> I accept exactly what is in the standard. The 2-dimensional array
>>> a2i in the initialization expression is converted to a pointer to a
>>> 1-dimensional array. As a result of the initialzation, p1i, a
>>> pointer to a 1-dimensional array, points to that 1-dimensional array.
>>>
>> If a 2d array is converted to a pointer , the pointer points to a 2d
>> array.
>> The pointed to TYPE is a 1d array and you are obviously confusing this
>> with
>> with the pointed to entity.
>
> According to the C++ standard an n-dimensional array is converted to
> a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional array. The result of that
> conversion on a 2d array is a pointer to 1d array. A pointer to a
> 1d array points to a 1d array, not to a 2d array. You appear to be
> confusing C++ with a programming language in which arrays are
> polymorphic over dimensions.
>
You are confusing the whole context of the statement in the standard.
It doesn't mean the array is converted to a pointer that no longer points to
the array.
>>> [snip]
Run out of time need to cut this short.
BBFN
.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnir64sj.pso.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> |
| In reply to | #4115 |
On 2011-04-20, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrniqrm4f.2usb.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
[snip]
>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>
>> #include <iostream>
>> #include <typeinfo>
>>
>> int main() {
>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] = &a1i;
>>
>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>> }
>>
> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
> For example:
>
> int arr[40] ={0};
> int* parr = arr;
> int (*pparr)[40] = &arr;
>
> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t" << &arr[0] <<std::endl;
> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t" << *parr <<std::endl;
> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t" << *pparr <<std::endl;
>
> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a temporary
> pointer.
> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an array-type
> object.
Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
the name arr accesses an array.
In the above statement, *pparr dereferences a pointer to an array,
resulting in an array to which array-to-pointer conversion is applied,
resulting in a pointer to the first element of the array.
The expression &arr[0] also results in a pointer to the first element
of the array. Due to value to which pparr was initialized, the output
to cout of the expressions *pparr and &arr[0] are the same. The
output to cout of the expression arr would also be the same, due to an
implicit array-to-pointer conversion.
The expression *parr dereferences a pointer to int, resulting in the
pointed to int. That same int would be output by the statement
std::cout<< "value of (*pparr)[0]\t\t" << (*pparr)[0] <<std::endl;
or
std::cout<< "value of arr[0]\t\t" << arr[0] <<std::endl;
Look at the difference in the output of the two statements:
std::cout<< "value of pparr\t" << pparr <<std::endl;
std::cout<< "value of pparr+1\t" << pparr+1 <<std::endl;
On a system where sizeof int is 4 the difference will be 0xa0
(decimal 160). That is the amount of space occupied by an
array of 40 ints. pparr is a pointer to an array of 40 ints.
The variable parr is a pointer to an int, not a pointer to an array.
The variable pparr is a pointer to an array, not a pointer to a
pointer to an array.
>> The (implementation defined) values returned by typeid(a1i).name()
>> and typeid(*pa1i).name() are the same. The output indicates that
>> both ai1 and *pai1 are arrays of 4 ints.
>>
> No it outputs the type, not the pointed to object.
> *pa1i does not derefernece a pointer to the array, it dereferenes a pointer
> to a tempory object of array-type.
> Basically its a fancy pointer to a pointer.
I never said that typeid outputs the pointed to object. The
declaration was
int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] = &a1i;
pa1i is a pointer to an array. *pa1i dereferences it resulting in
an array. The only objects here are an array (named a1i) and a
pointer to array (named pa1i). There is no pointer to a temporary
object here.
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> The fact that the result of incrementing p is a pointer to the next
>>>> int address indicates that p is a pointer to an int, not a pointer
>>>> to an array of 4 ints.
>>> No this is incorrect a pointer of type int* can point to both a single
>>> int
>>> and an array of ints.
>>
>> If an int* could point to an array of int, the following statement
>> that tries to initialize an int* with a pointer to an array of int
>> would be allowed, but it isn't.
>>
>> int a1i[4], *pi = &a1i;
>>
Correction: the line
int a1i[4], *pi = &a1i;
should have been
int a1i[4], *(pa1i)[4] = &a1i;
> &ali is a pointer derivation from an array-type.
> This creates a pointer that references an array-type, not the actual array
> of ints.
> To reference an array of ints, you need to use a pointer-type int*, and you
> do not use the addressof& operator, like so:
> int* p = a1i;
> This pointer , when dereferenced, accesses the array like so:
> p[int_offset];
The expression &a1i is a pointer to the array named a1i (just as the
expression &i where i is an int is a pointer to the int named i).
Dereferencing &a1i results in the array of int named a1i.
The expression p[int_offset], where p is a pointer to an int, treats
p as if it is a pointer to an element of an array of ints. The
result of the subscript operation is the int that is int_offset
elements away from the array element pointed to by p.
> The following pointer-type
> int (*p)[4] =&a1i;
> Does not access the array when dereferenced, it accesses an array-type
> object. This object is bascially another pointer to the array.
> Pointing to an array-type object, is not the same as pointing to the array
> of ints. It points to AN array , yes an array-type object( which is
> basically another pointer under the hood), it doesn't point to THE array of
> ints.
Here, the object named p is a pointer to the array named a1i.
Dereferencing it results that array. The expression
(*p)[int_offset]
access the int_offset element of that array.
Look at the output of the following program.
#include <iostream>
#include <typeinfo>
int main() {
int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4]=&a1i;
std::cout<<"typeid(a1i)"<<((typeid(a1i)==typeid(*pa1i))?"==":"!=")<<
"typeid(*pa1i)"<<std::endl;
std::cout<<"a1i"<<((a1i==*pa1i)?"==":"!=")<<"*pa1i"<<std::endl;
}
a1i and *pa1i have the same type and value. pa1i points to the
array of int named a1i.
>>>>
>>>> In the declaration
>>>>
>>>> int a2i[3][4], (*p1i)[4] = a2i;
>>>>
>>>> p1i is a pointer to an array of 4 ints.
>>>
>>> But when its dereferenced in doesn't return 4 ints. It is not a pointer
>>> to
>>> an array(entity) of 4 ints, it is a pointer to array-type.
>>
>> What derefencing p1i retuns is an array of 4 ints. You omitted the
>> word "array" from what I wrote.
>
> When you dereference p1i, you create a temporary array-type object the value
> of which is another memory address. You do not get an array of 4 ints,
> example:
>
> int arr[4] = {1,2,3,4};
> int (*p)[4] = &arr;
>
> std::cout<< *p;
>
> The type of p is an array-type, this means it points to an object of
> array-type, not an array of int objects.
There is no temporary array-type object the value of which is
another memory address. There are two objects: an array named arr
and a pointer to array named p. Due to the initialization, p points
the array of int named arr.
Evaluating the expression *p results in an array, the one named
arr; array-to-pointer conversion is applied to that array resulting
in a pointer to the first element of the array, a pointer to int.
That pointer to int is converted to a pointer to void to call the
operator<<(const void*) of cout.
[snip]
>> According to the C++ standard an n-dimensional array is converted to
>> a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional array. The result of that
>> conversion on a 2d array is a pointer to 1d array. A pointer to a
>> 1d array points to a 1d array, not to a 2d array. You appear to be
>> confusing C++ with a programming language in which arrays are
>> polymorphic over dimensions.
>>
> You are confusing the whole context of the statement in the standard.
> It doesn't mean the array is converted to a pointer that no longer points to
> the array.
I'm not confusing anything. I accept what the C++ standard states.
Here, it states that a conversion is done from an array to a pointer
to an element of the array. What is pointed to is an element of the
array, not the array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 20:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <%OFsp.42022$bT6.13973@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4284 |
"A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:slrnir64sj.pso.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> On 2011-04-20, Paul <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "A. Bolmarcich" <aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrniqrm4f.2usb.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
> [snip]
>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>
>>> #include <iostream>
>>> #include <typeinfo>
>>>
>>> int main() {
>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] = &a1i;
>>>
>>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>> }
>>>
>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>> For example:
>>
>> int arr[40] ={0};
>> int* parr = arr;
>> int (*pparr)[40] = &arr;
>>
>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t" << &arr[0] <<std::endl;
>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t" << *parr <<std::endl;
>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t" << *pparr <<std::endl;
>>
>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a temporary
>> pointer.
>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>> array-type
>> object.
>
> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
> the name arr accesses an array.
No it doesn't
*arr =1; /*Accesses the array*/
*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/
>
> In the above statement, *pparr dereferences a pointer to an array,
> resulting in an array to which array-to-pointer conversion is applied,
> resulting in a pointer to the first element of the array.
>
> The expression &arr[0] also results in a pointer to the first element
> of the array. Due to value to which pparr was initialized, the output
> to cout of the expressions *pparr and &arr[0] are the same. The
> output to cout of the expression arr would also be the same, due to an
> implicit array-to-pointer conversion.
>
> The expression *parr dereferences a pointer to int, resulting in the
> pointed to int. That same int would be output by the statement
>
> std::cout<< "value of (*pparr)[0]\t\t" << (*pparr)[0] <<std::endl;
>
> or
>
> std::cout<< "value of arr[0]\t\t" << arr[0] <<std::endl;
>
> Look at the difference in the output of the two statements:
>
> std::cout<< "value of pparr\t" << pparr <<std::endl;
> std::cout<< "value of pparr+1\t" << pparr+1 <<std::endl;
>
> On a system where sizeof int is 4 the difference will be 0xa0
> (decimal 160). That is the amount of space occupied by an
> array of 40 ints. pparr is a pointer to an array of 40 ints.
>
> The variable parr is a pointer to an int, not a pointer to an array.
> The variable pparr is a pointer to an array, not a pointer to a
> pointer to an array.
>
>>> The (implementation defined) values returned by typeid(a1i).name()
>>> and typeid(*pa1i).name() are the same. The output indicates that
>>> both ai1 and *pai1 are arrays of 4 ints.
>>>
>> No it outputs the type, not the pointed to object.
>> *pa1i does not derefernece a pointer to the array, it dereferenes a
>> pointer
>> to a tempory object of array-type.
>> Basically its a fancy pointer to a pointer.
>
> I never said that typeid outputs the pointed to object. The
> declaration was
>
> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] = &a1i;
>
> pa1i is a pointer to an array. *pa1i dereferences it resulting in
> an array. The only objects here are an array (named a1i) and a
> pointer to array (named pa1i). There is no pointer to a temporary
> object here.
>
No there are four integer objects here, that you fail to acknowledge.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> The fact that the result of incrementing p is a pointer to the next
>>>>> int address indicates that p is a pointer to an int, not a pointer
>>>>> to an array of 4 ints.
>>>> No this is incorrect a pointer of type int* can point to both a single
>>>> int
>>>> and an array of ints.
>>>
>>> If an int* could point to an array of int, the following statement
>>> that tries to initialize an int* with a pointer to an array of int
>>> would be allowed, but it isn't.
>>>
>>> int a1i[4], *pi = &a1i;
>>>
>
> Correction: the line
>
> int a1i[4], *pi = &a1i;
>
> should have been
>
> int a1i[4], *(pa1i)[4] = &a1i;
>
>> &ali is a pointer derivation from an array-type.
>> This creates a pointer that references an array-type, not the actual
>> array
>> of ints.
>> To reference an array of ints, you need to use a pointer-type int*, and
>> you
>> do not use the addressof& operator, like so:
>> int* p = a1i;
>> This pointer , when dereferenced, accesses the array like so:
>> p[int_offset];
>
> The expression &a1i is a pointer to the array named a1i (just as the
> expression &i where i is an int is a pointer to the int named i).
> Dereferencing &a1i results in the array of int named a1i.
>
> The expression p[int_offset], where p is a pointer to an int, treats
> p as if it is a pointer to an element of an array of ints. The
> result of the subscript operation is the int that is int_offset
> elements away from the array element pointed to by p.
>
>> The following pointer-type
>> int (*p)[4] =&a1i;
>> Does not access the array when dereferenced, it accesses an array-type
>> object. This object is bascially another pointer to the array.
>> Pointing to an array-type object, is not the same as pointing to the
>> array
>> of ints. It points to AN array , yes an array-type object( which is
>> basically another pointer under the hood), it doesn't point to THE array
>> of
>> ints.
>
> Here, the object named p is a pointer to the array named a1i.
> Dereferencing it results that array. The expression
>
No it doesn't , dererencing this pointer results in a non modifiable object
that cannot be used to access the array unless converted.
So it results in something that can be converted to a pointer to the array.
> (*p)[int_offset]
>
> access the int_offset element of that array.
>
> Look at the output of the following program.
>
> #include <iostream>
> #include <typeinfo>
> int main() {
> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4]=&a1i;
>
> std::cout<<"typeid(a1i)"<<((typeid(a1i)==typeid(*pa1i))?"==":"!=")<<
> "typeid(*pa1i)"<<std::endl;
> std::cout<<"a1i"<<((a1i==*pa1i)?"==":"!=")<<"*pa1i"<<std::endl;
> }
>
> a1i and *pa1i have the same type and value. pa1i points to the
> array of int named a1i.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the declaration
>>>>>
>>>>> int a2i[3][4], (*p1i)[4] = a2i;
>>>>>
>>>>> p1i is a pointer to an array of 4 ints.
>>>>
>>>> But when its dereferenced in doesn't return 4 ints. It is not a pointer
>>>> to
>>>> an array(entity) of 4 ints, it is a pointer to array-type.
>>>
>>> What derefencing p1i retuns is an array of 4 ints. You omitted the
>>> word "array" from what I wrote.
>>
>> When you dereference p1i, you create a temporary array-type object the
>> value
>> of which is another memory address. You do not get an array of 4 ints,
>> example:
>>
>> int arr[4] = {1,2,3,4};
>> int (*p)[4] = &arr;
>>
>> std::cout<< *p;
>>
>> The type of p is an array-type, this means it points to an object of
>> array-type, not an array of int objects.
>
> There is no temporary array-type object the value of which is
> another memory address. There are two objects: an array named arr
> and a pointer to array named p. Due to the initialization, p points
> the array of int named arr.
Again you fail to acknoweldge the four integer objects.
Where is this object that you describe as "the array named arr" strored?
>
> Evaluating the expression *p results in an array, the one named
> arr; array-to-pointer conversion is applied to that array resulting
> in a pointer to the first element of the array, a pointer to int.
> That pointer to int is converted to a pointer to void to call the
> operator<<(const void*) of cout.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> According to the C++ standard an n-dimensional array is converted to
>>> a pointer to an (n - 1)-dimensional array. The result of that
>>> conversion on a 2d array is a pointer to 1d array. A pointer to a
>>> 1d array points to a 1d array, not to a 2d array. You appear to be
>>> confusing C++ with a programming language in which arrays are
>>> polymorphic over dimensions.
>>>
>> You are confusing the whole context of the statement in the standard.
>> It doesn't mean the array is converted to a pointer that no longer points
>> to
>> the array.
>
> I'm not confusing anything. I accept what the C++ standard states.
> Here, it states that a conversion is done from an array to a pointer
> to an element of the array. What is pointed to is an element of the
> array, not the array.
You must be pointing to the array , to point to an element. Where is this
element stored if not witihin the array?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 09:26 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <91guh2F6cmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4289 |
On 04/24/11 07:31 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> "A. Bolmarcich"<aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnir64sj.pso.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> On 2011-04-20, Paul<pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> "A. Bolmarcich"<aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrniqrm4f.2usb.aggedor@earl-grey.cloud9.net...
>> [snip]
>>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
>>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>>
>>>> #include<iostream>
>>>> #include<typeinfo>
>>>>
>>>> int main() {
>>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] =&a1i;
>>>>
>>>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> int arr[40] ={0};
>>> int* parr = arr;
>>> int (*pparr)[40] =&arr;
>>>
>>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t"<< &arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t"<< *parr<<std::endl;
>>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t"<< *pparr<<std::endl;
>>>
>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a temporary
>>> pointer.
>>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>>> array-type
>>> object.
>>
>> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
>> the name arr accesses an array.
> No it doesn't
All together now - oh yes it does!
try adding
(*pparr)[0] = 42;
std::cout<< "value of arr[0]\t\t" << arr[0] <<std::endl;
arr[10] = 1234;
std::cout<< "value of (*pparr)[0]\t\t" << (*pparr)[10] <<std::endl;
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 00:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7WIsp.37183$2W5.2255@newsfe16.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4291 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91guh2F6cmU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 04/24/11 07:31 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
>>>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>>>
>>>>> #include<iostream>
>>>>> #include<typeinfo>
>>>>>
>>>>> int main() {
>>>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] =&a1i;
>>>>>
>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> int arr[40] ={0};
>>>> int* parr = arr;
>>>> int (*pparr)[40] =&arr;
>>>>
>>>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t"<< &arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t"<< *parr<<std::endl;
>>>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t"<< *pparr<<std::endl;
>>>>
>>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a temporary
>>>> pointer.
>>>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>>>> array-type
>>>> object.
>>>
>>> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
>>> the name arr accesses an array.
>
>> No it doesn't
>
What I wrote was:
No it doesn't
*arr =1; /*Accesses the array*/
*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/
There is no need to snip something so short. Obviously you are attempting to
change the context of my post from that of a reasonable debate into a blunt
non explanatory argument.
> All together now - oh yes it does!
You seem to have nothing positive to add as an individual. All you attempt
to do is create a "more is better" argument.
>
> try adding
>
> (*pparr)[0] = 42;
> std::cout<< "value of arr[0]\t\t" << arr[0] <<std::endl;
> arr[10] = 1234;
> std::cout<< "value of (*pparr)[0]\t\t" << (*pparr)[10] <<std::endl;
>
This code only confirms that *arr, is not the same as *pparr, in any sense.
Which is exactly what I said.
As I said dereferencing pparr doesn't access the arrray it accesses an
array-type object.
As can be shown:
std::cout<< *p;
std::cout<< typeid(*p).name();
*p = 50; /*Wrong. cannot access the array*/
There are two ways this array-type object can be used to access the array
(i) Convert to a pointer.
(ii) Convert to a reference.
For example:
(i) int* p = *p;
(ii) int (&r)[40] = *p;
These are the only two object-types that can access the array, namely:
(i) A pointer to an array.
(ii) A reference to an array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 11:24 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <91h5dpF6cmU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4295 |
On 04/24/11 11:04 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:91guh2F6cmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 04/24/11 07:31 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
>>>>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include<iostream>
>>>>>> #include<typeinfo>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] =&a1i;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> int arr[40] ={0};
>>>>> int* parr = arr;
>>>>> int (*pparr)[40] =&arr;
>>>>>
>>>>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t"<< &arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t"<< *parr<<std::endl;
>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t"<< *pparr<<std::endl;
>>>>>
>>>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a temporary
>>>>> pointer.
>>>>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>>>>> array-type
>>>>> object.
>>>>
>>>> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
>>>> the name arr accesses an array.
>>
>>> No it doesn't
>>
> What I wrote was:
> No it doesn't
> *arr =1; /*Accesses the array*/
> *pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/
>
> There is no need to snip something so short. Obviously you are attempting to
> change the context of my post from that of a reasonable debate into a blunt
> non explanatory argument.
I was replying to text above, not the example, which had no relevance to
the text.
Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing
struct X { int n; };
X x;
X* px = &x;
*px = 1;
>>
>> try adding
>>
>> (*pparr)[0] = 42;
>> std::cout<< "value of arr[0]\t\t"<< arr[0]<<std::endl;
>> arr[10] = 1234;
>> std::cout<< "value of (*pparr)[0]\t\t"<< (*pparr)[10]<<std::endl;
>>
> This code only confirms that *arr, is not the same as *pparr, in any sense.
> Which is exactly what I said.
Did anyone dispute that? Remember you disputed "Dereferencing pparr
accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr accesses an
array".
So how does "(*pparr)[0] = 42;" differ from "arr[0] = 42;"?
Does (*pparr) not dereference pparr?
> As I said dereferencing pparr doesn't access the arrray it accesses an
> array-type object.
> As can be shown:
> std::cout<< *p;
> std::cout<< typeid(*p).name();
Try adding
std::cout << (typeid(arr) == typeid(*pparr)) << std::endl;
> *p = 50; /*Wrong. cannot access the array*/
Obviously (assuming p above is pparr). You have exactly the same
situation as the struct example above. But if you dereference the
pointer, you can use the result as if it were the original array, as my
additions and running the above showed you.
> There are two ways this array-type object can be used to access the array
> (i) Convert to a pointer.
> (ii) Convert to a reference.
I think the examples above disprove that.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 02:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <%RKsp.40408$5t2.24872@newsfe06.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4296 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91h5dpF6cmU3@mid.individual.net...
> On 04/24/11 11:04 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
>>>>>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #include<iostream>
>>>>>>> #include<typeinfo>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] =&a1i;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int arr[40] ={0};
>>>>>> int* parr = arr;
>>>>>> int (*pparr)[40] =&arr;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t"<< &arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t"<< *parr<<std::endl;
>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t"<< *pparr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a temporary
>>>>>> pointer.
>>>>>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>>>>>> array-type
>>>>>> object.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
>>>>> the name arr accesses an array.
>>>
>>>> No it doesn't
>>>
>> What I wrote was:
>> No it doesn't
>> *arr =1; /*Accesses the array*/
>> *pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/
>>
>> There is no need to snip something so short. Obviously you are attempting
>> to
>> change the context of my post from that of a reasonable debate into a
>> blunt
>> non explanatory argument.
>
> I was replying to text above, not the example, which had no relevance to
> the text.
>
> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing
>
> struct X { int n; };
>
> X x;
> X* px = &x;
> *px = 1;
>
Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/". is completely different from writing
the above code.
pparr's type is not a pointer to an X. It's type is pointer to array of
ints.
>>>
>>> try adding
>>>
>>> (*pparr)[0] = 42;
>>> std::cout<< "value of arr[0]\t\t"<< arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>> arr[10] = 1234;
>>> std::cout<< "value of (*pparr)[0]\t\t"<< (*pparr)[10]<<std::endl;
>>>
>> This code only confirms that *arr, is not the same as *pparr, in any
>> sense.
>> Which is exactly what I said.
>
> Did anyone dispute that? Remember you disputed "Dereferencing pparr
> accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr accesses an
> array".
dereferencing pparr does not access the array , it..*drumroll* dereferences
pparr.
>
> So how does "(*pparr)[0] = 42;" differ from "arr[0] = 42;"?
>
If you can't see that they differ in levels of indirection, then you do not
understand the code.
> Does (*pparr) not dereference pparr?
>
>> As I said dereferencing pparr doesn't access the arrray it accesses an
>> array-type object.
>> As can be shown:
>> std::cout<< *p;
>> std::cout<< typeid(*p).name();
>
> Try adding
>
> std::cout << (typeid(arr) == typeid(*pparr)) << std::endl;
This is just a pointless comment that in no way suggests the *pparr access
the array.
This simply shows that *pparr has the same type as arr. I have already
stated that *pparr yields an array-type object.
>
>> *p = 50; /*Wrong. cannot access the array*/
>
> Obviously (assuming p above is pparr). You have exactly the same
> situation as the struct example above. But if you dereference the
> pointer, you can use the result as if it were the original array, as my
> additions and running the above showed you.
A struct is not an array. And yes obviously p is an example of a
pointer-type int(*)[N]
>
>> There are two ways this array-type object can be used to access the array
>> (i) Convert to a pointer.
>> (ii) Convert to a reference.
>
> I think the examples above disprove that.
>
What examples? And what do you suggest they disprove about the above?
If you disagree with what I said here , can you show me how to access an
array without using a pointer or a reference, or converting to one?
If you cannot provide an example of code to back up your statement is
nothing more than meaningless drivel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 14:10 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <91hf57F6cmU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4297 |
On 04/24/11 01:16 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:91h5dpF6cmU3@mid.individual.net...
>> On 04/24/11 11:04 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an array
>>>>>>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #include<iostream>
>>>>>>>> #include<typeinfo>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] =&a1i;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int arr[40] ={0};
>>>>>>> int* parr = arr;
>>>>>>> int (*pparr)[40] =&arr;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t"<< &arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t"<< *parr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t"<< *pparr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a temporary
>>>>>>> pointer.
>>>>>>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>>>>>>> array-type
>>>>>>> object.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
>>>>>> the name arr accesses an array.
>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't
>>>>
>>> What I wrote was:
>>> No it doesn't
>>> *arr =1; /*Accesses the array*/
>>> *pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/
>>>
>>> There is no need to snip something so short. Obviously you are attempting
>>> to
>>> change the context of my post from that of a reasonable debate into a
>>> blunt
>>> non explanatory argument.
>>
>> I was replying to text above, not the example, which had no relevance to
>> the text.
>>
>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing
>>
>> struct X { int n; };
>>
>> X x;
>> X* px =&x;
>> *px = 1;
>>
> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/". is completely different from writing
> the above code.
> pparr's type is not a pointer to an X. It's type is pointer to array of
> ints.
Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> try adding
>>>>
>>>> (*pparr)[0] = 42;
>>>> std::cout<< "value of arr[0]\t\t"<< arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>> arr[10] = 1234;
>>>> std::cout<< "value of (*pparr)[0]\t\t"<< (*pparr)[10]<<std::endl;
>>>>
>>> This code only confirms that *arr, is not the same as *pparr, in any
>>> sense.
>>> Which is exactly what I said.
>>
>> Did anyone dispute that? Remember you disputed "Dereferencing pparr
>> accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr accesses an
>> array".
> dereferencing pparr does not access the array , it..*drumroll* dereferences
> pparr.
Neither does arr. Remember the origin claim you disputed?
"Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using the
name arr accesses an array".
>> So how does "(*pparr)[0] = 42;" differ from "arr[0] = 42;"?
>>
> If you can't see that they differ in levels of indirection, then you do not
> understand the code.
Quite. Remember the words "Dereferencing pparr'?
>> Does (*pparr) not dereference pparr?
>>
>>> As I said dereferencing pparr doesn't access the arrray it accesses an
>>> array-type object.
>>> As can be shown:
>>> std::cout<< *p;
>>> std::cout<< typeid(*p).name();
>>
>> Try adding
>>
>> std::cout<< (typeid(arr) == typeid(*pparr))<< std::endl;
>
> This is just a pointless comment that in no way suggests the *pparr access
> the array.
> This simply shows that *pparr has the same type as arr. I have already
> stated that *pparr yields an array-type object.
So dereferencing pparr allows you to access the array in the same manner
as arr. You have just disproved your own claim.
Well done.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 04:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KVMsp.5319$Pi.32@newsfe22.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4299 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91hf57F6cmU6@mid.individual.net...
> On 04/24/11 01:16 PM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:91h5dpF6cmU3@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 04/24/11 11:04 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an
>>>>>>>>> array
>>>>>>>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> #include<iostream>
>>>>>>>>> #include<typeinfo>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>>>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] =&a1i;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int arr[40] ={0};
>>>>>>>> int* parr = arr;
>>>>>>>> int (*pparr)[40] =&arr;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t"<< &arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t"<< *parr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t"<< *pparr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a
>>>>>>>> temporary
>>>>>>>> pointer.
>>>>>>>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>>>>>>>> array-type
>>>>>>>> object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
>>>>>>> the name arr accesses an array.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't
>>>>>
>>>> What I wrote was:
>>>> No it doesn't
>>>> *arr =1; /*Accesses the array*/
>>>> *pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/
>>>>
>>>> There is no need to snip something so short. Obviously you are
>>>> attempting
>>>> to
>>>> change the context of my post from that of a reasonable debate into a
>>>> blunt
>>>> non explanatory argument.
>>>
>>> I was replying to text above, not the example, which had no relevance to
>>> the text.
>>>
>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing
>>>
>>> struct X { int n; };
>>>
>>> X x;
>>> X* px =&x;
>>> *px = 1;
>>>
>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/". is completely different from
>> writing
>> the above code.
>> pparr's type is not a pointer to an X. It's type is pointer to array of
>> ints.
>
> Exactly.
So *pparr=1; IS completely different from *px=1;
Which you originally tried to present at being no different.
Your are inconsistent.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> try adding
>>>>>
>>>>> (*pparr)[0] = 42;
>>>>> std::cout<< "value of arr[0]\t\t"<< arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>>> arr[10] = 1234;
>>>>> std::cout<< "value of (*pparr)[0]\t\t"<<
>>>>> (*pparr)[10]<<std::endl;
>>>>>
>>>> This code only confirms that *arr, is not the same as *pparr, in any
>>>> sense.
>>>> Which is exactly what I said.
>>>
>>> Did anyone dispute that? Remember you disputed "Dereferencing pparr
>>> accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr accesses an
>>> array".
>
>> dereferencing pparr does not access the array , it..*drumroll*
>> dereferences
>> pparr.
>
> Neither does arr. Remember the origin claim you disputed? "Dereferencing
> pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr accesses
> an array".
*arr =1;
Almost everything you say is completely incorrect, do you actually know
anything about C++ or are you just another noob trying to act as if you know
something?
And you snipped something from the previous post:
<quote>
>> There are two ways this array-type object can be used to access the array
>> (i) Convert to a pointer.
>> (ii) Convert to a reference.
>
> I think the examples above disprove that.
>
What examples? And what do you suggest they disprove about the above?
If you disagree with what I said here , can you show me how to access an
array without using a pointer or a reference, or converting to one?
If you cannot provide an example of code to back up your statement is
nothing more than meaningless drivel.
</quote>
I take it, from your silent snipping, that you unable to provide any code
that proves your claim.
And people wonder why I call them idiots.
<snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 16:11 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <91hm6tF6cmU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4301 |
On 04/24/11 03:37 PM, Paul wrote:
> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/24/11 01:16 PM, Paul wrote:
>>> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/24/11 11:04 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an
>>>>>>>>>> array
>>>>>>>>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> #include<iostream>
>>>>>>>>>> #include<typeinfo>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>>>>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] =&a1i;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid( a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int arr[40] ={0};
>>>>>>>>> int* parr = arr;
>>>>>>>>> int (*pparr)[40] =&arr;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t"<< &arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t"<< *parr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t"<< *pparr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a
>>>>>>>>> temporary
>>>>>>>>> pointer.
>>>>>>>>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>>>>>>>>> array-type
>>>>>>>>> object.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
>>>>>>>> the name arr accesses an array.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it doesn't
>>>>>>
>>>>> What I wrote was:
>>>>> No it doesn't
>>>>> *arr =1; /*Accesses the array*/
>>>>> *pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no need to snip something so short. Obviously you are
>>>>> attempting
>>>>> to
>>>>> change the context of my post from that of a reasonable debate into a
>>>>> blunt
>>>>> non explanatory argument.
>>>>
>>>> I was replying to text above, not the example, which had no relevance to
>>>> the text.
>>>>
>>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing
>>>>
>>>> struct X { int n; };
>>>>
>>>> X x;
>>>> X* px =&x;
>>>> *px = 1;
>>>>
>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/". is completely different from
>>> writing
>>> the above code.
>>> pparr's type is not a pointer to an X. It's type is pointer to array of
>>> ints.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> So *pparr=1; IS completely different from *px=1;
> Which you originally tried to present at being no different.
No. I said "*px = 1;" is no different from "*pparr=1;". Both are errors.
>> Neither does arr. Remember the origin claim you disputed? "Dereferencing
>> pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr accesses
>> an array".
>
> *arr =1;
What has that do do with "Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the
same sense that using the name arr accesses an array"?
> Almost everything you say is completely incorrect,
What exactly did I say that was in correct? I said you were wrong in
denying the quote above and you have consistently failed to address that.
> And you snipped something from the previous post:
> <quote>
>>> There are two ways this array-type object can be used to access the array
>>> (i) Convert to a pointer.
>>> (ii) Convert to a reference.
>>
>> I think the examples above disprove that.
>>
> What examples?
(*pparr)[0] = 42;
> And what do you suggest they disprove about the above?
> If you disagree with what I said here , can you show me how to access an
> array without using a pointer or a reference, or converting to one?
> If you cannot provide an example of code to back up your statement is
> nothing more than meaningless drivel.
> </quote>
>
> I take it, from your silent snipping, that you unable to provide any code
> that proves your claim.
I've never tried noisy snipping. I have shown you that
(*pparr)[0] = 42;
is equivalent to
arr[0] = 42;
and
typeid(arr) == typeid(*pparr)
Thus "Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
the name arr accesses an array", the point you denied.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 13:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2LUsp.37194$2W5.34221@newsfe16.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4302 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91hm6tF6cmU7@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> A pointer to an array of 4 ints, when dereferenced, returns an
>>>>>>>>>>> array
>>>>>>>>>>> of 4 ints. Look at the output of running the following program.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> #include<iostream>
>>>>>>>>>>> #include<typeinfo>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>>>>>>> int a1i[4], (*pa1i)[4] =&a1i;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(
>>>>>>>>>>> a1i)="<<typeid(a1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> std::cout<<"typeid(*pa1i)="<<typeid(*pa1i).name()<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are dereferencing an array-type , not an array.
>>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int arr[40] ={0};
>>>>>>>>>> int* parr = arr;
>>>>>>>>>> int (*pparr)[40] =&arr;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "address of arr[0]:\t"<<
>>>>>>>>>> &arr[0]<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *parr:\t\t"<<
>>>>>>>>>> *parr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>> std::cout<< "value of *pparr\t\t"<<
>>>>>>>>>> *pparr<<std::endl;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr does not access the array it accesses a
>>>>>>>>>> temporary
>>>>>>>>>> pointer.
>>>>>>>>>> The pointer pparr does not reference the array, it references an
>>>>>>>>>> array-type
>>>>>>>>>> object.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using
>>>>>>>>> the name arr accesses an array.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it doesn't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I wrote was:
>>>>>> No it doesn't
>>>>>> *arr =1; /*Accesses the array*/
>>>>>> *pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no need to snip something so short. Obviously you are
>>>>>> attempting
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> change the context of my post from that of a reasonable debate into
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> blunt
>>>>>> non explanatory argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was replying to text above, not the example, which had no relevance
>>>>> to
>>>>> the text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing
>>>>>
>>>>> struct X { int n; };
>>>>>
>>>>> X x;
>>>>> X* px =&x;
>>>>> *px = 1;
>>>>>
>>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/". is completely different from
>>>> writing
>>>> the above code.
>>>> pparr's type is not a pointer to an X. It's type is pointer to array of
>>>> ints.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> So *pparr=1; IS completely different from *px=1;
>> Which you originally tried to present at being no different.
>
> No. I said "*px = 1;" is no different from "*pparr=1;". Both are errors.
Altogether now! No you didn't say that.
>>> dereferencing pparr does not access the array , it..*drumroll*
>>> dereferences
>>> pparr.
>
>>> Neither does arr. Remember the origin claim you disputed?
>>> "Dereferencing
>>> pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr
>>> accesses
>>> an array".
>>
>> *arr =1;
>
>> Almost everything you say is completely incorrect,
>
> What exactly did I say that was in correct? I said you were wrong in
> denying the quote above and you have consistently failed to address that.
>
When I said dereferencing pparr does not access the array , you said
"neither does arr", which is obvioulsy wrong because dereferencing arr does
access the array.
Do I really have to point out the meaning an of every single statement
because you are too stupid to interpret anything correctly.
>> And you snipped something from the previous post:
>> <quote>
>>>> There are two ways this array-type object can be used to access the
>>>> array
>>>> (i) Convert to a pointer.
>>>> (ii) Convert to a reference.
>>>
>>> I think the examples above disprove that.
>>>
>> What examples?
>
> (*pparr)[0] = 42;
>
You Fail.
This code dereferences pparr then uses the subscript operator, which
converts (*pparr) to an int* which is then further dereferenced.
This clarifies what you claim to disprove cannot be disproved, at least not
by you anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 17:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4db44887$0$6761$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #4308 |
Am 24.04.2011 14:31, schrieb Paul: > > When I said dereferencing pparr does not access the array , you said > "neither does arr", which is obvioulsy wrong because dereferencing arr does > access the array. > > Do I really have to point out the meaning an of every single statement > because you are too stupid to interpret anything correctly. If you weren't so superficial, and would actually *read* and *understand* the statement you are trying to dispute, you would see that it's you whose arguments completely miss the point. It's not "*parr" vs. "*arr", but "*parr" vs. "arr". Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 17:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <FnYsp.14829$tp6.10144@newsfe25.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4318 |
"Peter Remmers" <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message news:4db44887$0$6761$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net... > Am 24.04.2011 14:31, schrieb Paul: >> >> When I said dereferencing pparr does not access the array , you said >> "neither does arr", which is obvioulsy wrong because dereferencing arr >> does >> access the array. >> >> Do I really have to point out the meaning an of every single statement >> because you are too stupid to interpret anything correctly. > > If you weren't so superficial, and would actually *read* and *understand* > the statement you are trying to dispute, you would see that it's you whose > arguments completely miss the point. > > It's not "*parr" vs. "*arr", but "*parr" vs. "arr". > The statement in dispute is "dereferencing pparr does not access the array". And it was you who originally disputed it. You said dereferencing pparr accesses the array in the same way arr does, which is incorrect as can be shown: **pparr=1; *arr=1; Dereferencing ppparr accesses an array-type object, not the array of integers. Dereferencing pparr TWICE accesses the array. This is not the same as dereferencing arr ONCE to access the array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-25 10:19 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <91jlvaF56lU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4320 |
On 04/25/11 04:39 AM, Paul wrote: > "Peter Remmers"<p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >> Am 24.04.2011 14:31, schrieb Paul: >>> >>> When I said dereferencing pparr does not access the array , you said >>> "neither does arr", which is obvioulsy wrong because dereferencing arr >>> does >>> access the array. >>> >>> Do I really have to point out the meaning an of every single statement >>> because you are too stupid to interpret anything correctly. >> >> If you weren't so superficial, and would actually *read* and *understand* >> the statement you are trying to dispute, you would see that it's you whose >> arguments completely miss the point. >> >> It's not "*parr" vs. "*arr", but "*parr" vs. "arr". >> > The statement in dispute is "dereferencing pparr does not access the array". > And it was you who originally disputed it. > You said dereferencing pparr accesses the array in the same way arr does, > which is incorrect as can be shown: > **pparr=1; > *arr=1; Goodness me, you really have excelled your self here, haven't you? We all know *pparr is dereferencing pparr and typeid(arr) == typeid(*pparr), so *arr === **pparr. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-25 10:12 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <91jlisF56lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4308 |
On 04/25/11 12:31 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct X { int n; };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> X x;
>>>>>> X* px =&x;
>>>>>> *px = 1;
>>>>>>
>>>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/". is completely different from
>>>>> writing
>>>>> the above code.
>>>>> pparr's type is not a pointer to an X. It's type is pointer to array of
>>>>> ints.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> So *pparr=1; IS completely different from *px=1;
>>> Which you originally tried to present at being no different.
>>
>> No. I said "*px = 1;" is no different from "*pparr=1;". Both are errors.
>
> Altogether now! No you didn't say that.
You even quoted me saying it.
>>>> dereferencing pparr does not access the array , it..*drumroll*
>>>> dereferences
>>>> pparr.
>>
>>>> Neither does arr. Remember the origin claim you disputed?
>>>> "Dereferencing
>>>> pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr
>>>> accesses
>>>> an array".
>>>
>>> *arr =1;
>>
>>> Almost everything you say is completely incorrect,
>>
>> What exactly did I say that was in correct? I said you were wrong in
>> denying the quote above and you have consistently failed to address that.
>>
> When I said dereferencing pparr does not access the array , you said
> "neither does arr", which is obvioulsy wrong because dereferencing arr does
> access the array.
(*pparr) and arr have the same type. So whatever applies to one,
applies to the other.
> Do I really have to point out the meaning an of every single statement
> because you are too stupid to interpret anything correctly.
Ah, resorting to insults again, good job.
>> (*pparr)[0] = 42;
>>
> You Fail.
> This code dereferences pparr then uses the subscript operator,
Well that is how you access an array! How is it different from
arr[0] = 42?
I'll remind you again, the statement you disputed was:
"Dereferencing pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using the
name arr accesses an array".
Now given typeid(arr) == typeid(*pparr), how can that be false?
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-25 00:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cD2tp.1694$_c3.685@newsfe26.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4324 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91jlisF56lU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 04/25/11 12:31 AM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> struct X { int n; };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> X x;
>>>>>>> X* px =&x;
>>>>>>> *px = 1;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/". is completely different from
>>>>>> writing
>>>>>> the above code.
>>>>>> pparr's type is not a pointer to an X. It's type is pointer to array
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> ints.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> So *pparr=1; IS completely different from *px=1;
>>>> Which you originally tried to present at being no different.
>>>
>>> No. I said "*px = 1;" is no different from "*pparr=1;". Both are
>>> errors.
>>
>> Altogether now! No you didn't say that.
>
> You even quoted me saying it.
Altogether now! No I didn't.
>
>>>>> dereferencing pparr does not access the array , it..*drumroll*
>>>>> dereferences
>>>>> pparr.
>>>
>>>>> Neither does arr. Remember the origin claim you disputed?
>>>>> "Dereferencing
>>>>> pparr accesses an array in the same sense that using the name arr
>>>>> accesses
>>>>> an array".
>>>>
>>>> *arr =1;
>>>
>>>> Almost everything you say is completely incorrect,
>>>
>>> What exactly did I say that was in correct? I said you were wrong in
>>> denying the quote above and you have consistently failed to address
>>> that.
>>>
>> When I said dereferencing pparr does not access the array , you said
>> "neither does arr", which is obvioulsy wrong because dereferencing arr
>> does
>> access the array.
>
> (*pparr) and arr have the same type. So whatever applies to one, applies
> to the other.
I told you they had the same type , they are array-type objects and they
cannot access the array without being converted to either a pointer or a
reference.
Under no circumstances can dereferencing pparr access the array in the same
way as arr, because pparr needs two derefences and arr only needs one, to
access the array. You cannot dereference arr twice. You MUST derefernece
pparr twice to access the arrray.
>
>> Do I really have to point out the meaning an of every single statement
>> because you are too stupid to interpret anything correctly.
>
> Ah, resorting to insults again, good job.
Its not an insult its a fact, and your failure to understand dereferencing
is a clear example.
>
>>> (*pparr)[0] = 42;
>>>
>> You Fail.
>> This code dereferences pparr then uses the subscript operator,
>
> Well that is how you access an array! How is it different from
> arr[0] = 42?
>
Your dispute is clear in the the following, which you have tried to avoid by
snipping:
<quote>
">>>> There are two ways this array-type object can be used to access the
>>>> array
>>>> (i) Convert to a pointer.
>>>> (ii) Convert to a reference.
>>>
>>> I think the examples above disprove that."
</quote>
If you do not understand that subscripting implicitly converts an array-type
object to a pointer , then please refrain from introducng your confused
stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-25 11:59 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <91jrqiF820U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4326 |
On 04/25/11 11:46 AM, Paul wrote: > "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 04/25/11 12:31 AM, Paul wrote: >>> >>> "Ian Collins"<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Saying "*pparr=1; /*Cannot do this*/" is no different form writing >> >> You even quoted me saying it. > Altogether now! No I didn't. Spot the self contradiction: >> (*pparr) and arr have the same type. So whatever applies to one, applies >> to the other. > > I told you they had the same type > Under no circumstances can dereferencing pparr access the array in the same > way as arr So they have the same type but are different. Um, interesting concept. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-25 05:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ip2nn9$k13$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4327 |
* Ian Collins, on 25.04.2011 01:59: > On 04/25/11 11:46 AM, Paul wrote: > > Spot the self contradiction: Please stop. Cheers & tia., - Alf -- blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-25 14:56 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <91k66uF820U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4330 |
On 04/25/11 03:01 PM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote: > * Ian Collins, on 25.04.2011 01:59: >> On 04/25/11 11:46 AM, Paul wrote: >> >> Spot the self contradiction: > > Please stop. I had. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web