Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #86106 > unrolled thread

“Why do arrays start at 0?"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  “Why do arrays start at 0?" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 15:49 -0500
    Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-08-26 16:56 -0500
      Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-08-27 00:46 +0100
        Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-08-26 22:29 -0400
          Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-26 22:05 -0700
            Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-08-27 12:06 +0100
      Re: Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-27 14:28 +0000
    Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> - 2022-08-26 16:08 -0600
    Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Gawr Gura <gawrgura@mail.hololive.com> - 2022-08-26 15:18 -0700
    Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-08-27 00:44 +0100
    Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2022-08-27 05:47 +0000
      Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-08-27 15:19 -0400
        Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2022-08-27 22:22 +0000
    Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-08-27 21:26 +0200
      Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-08-27 15:01 -0500
        Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2022-08-27 22:24 +0000
          Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-08-27 22:40 -0500
            Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-08-27 22:07 -0700
            Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2022-08-28 07:50 +0000
              Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-28 11:52 +0200
            Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-28 19:43 +0300
        Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-08-28 10:01 +0200
          Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2022-08-28 08:14 +0000
    Re: “Why do arrays start at 0?" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-08-28 11:07 +0200
    Re: ???Why do arrays start at 0?" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-29 11:15 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#86106 — “Why do arrays start at 0?"

“Why do arrays start at 0?"
    https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/

"It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”

My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my life 
hell.

Lynn

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#86110

On 8/26/2022 3:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>     https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
> 
> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
> 
> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my life 
> hell.
> 
> Lynn
> 
Fortran was there first...and got it right...you can change Fortran to 
start at other index values for many cases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86114

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 16:56:47 -0500
Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 8/26/2022 3:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > “Why do arrays start at 0?"
> >     https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
> > 
> > "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
> > 
> > My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my
> > life hell.
> > 
> > Lynn
> >   
> Fortran was there first...and got it right...you can change Fortran
> to start at other index values for many cases.

Being first doesn't make you correct. Fortran is retarded.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86115

On 8/26/22 19:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 16:56:47 -0500
> Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/26/2022 3:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>>      https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>>
>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>>
>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my
>>> life hell.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>    
>> Fortran was there first...and got it right...you can change Fortran
>> to start at other index values for many cases.
> 
> Being first doesn't make you correct. Fortran is retarded.
> 
> /Flibble
> 
A reasonable language would let you specify the lower index. Fortran 
and C are both retarded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86116

d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> writes:
> On 8/26/22 19:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 16:56:47 -0500
>> Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/26/2022 3:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>>>      https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>>>
>>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>>>
>>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my
>>>> life hell.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>    
>>> Fortran was there first...and got it right...you can change Fortran
>>> to start at other index values for many cases.
>> Being first doesn't make you correct. Fortran is retarded.
>> /Flibble
>> 
> A reasonable language would let you specify the lower index. Fortran
> and C are both retarded.

"Mr Flibble" is a troll, and I'm sure he's aware that "retarded" is an
offensive word.  Are you?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86118

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 22:05:17 -0700
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

> d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> writes:
> > On 8/26/22 19:46, Mr Flibble wrote:  
> >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 16:56:47 -0500
> >> Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>   
> >>> On 8/26/2022 3:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:  
> >>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
> >>>>      https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
> >>>>
> >>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
> >>>>
> >>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made
> >>>> my life hell.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lynn
> >>>>      
> >>> Fortran was there first...and got it right...you can change
> >>> Fortran to start at other index values for many cases.  
> >> Being first doesn't make you correct. Fortran is retarded.
> >> /Flibble
> >>   
> > A reasonable language would let you specify the lower index. Fortran
> > and C are both retarded.  
> 
> "Mr Flibble" is a troll, and I'm sure he's aware that "retarded" is an
> offensive word.  Are you?
 
Retarded isn't an offensive word but I could replace it with fucktarded
if that helps?

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86119

Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>On 8/26/2022 3:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>     https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>> 
>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>> 
>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my life 
>> hell.
>> 
>> Lynn
>> 
>Fortran was there first...and got it right...you can change Fortran to 
>start at other index values for many cases.

There are around twenty languages that start array indicies with one.  None of
them are low-level hardware-oriented languages (Burroughs algol excepted) like C. In the
hardware indicies start at zero by definition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86111

On 8/26/2022 2:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
> https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>
> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>
> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my 
> life hell.
>

Here's a crude outline of a solution:

If you want a C++ array index to start at 1, make the array one element 
bigger than necessary, and start indexing at 1, just like in Fortran. 
Element 0 will be unused.

If you want a C++ array to map exactly to a Fortran array, but with an 
index starting at 1, wrap the C++ array in a class and overload the 
subscripting operator(s) to subtract 1 from the index.

Neither of these approaches seems elegant, but one of them should be 
less hellish than the other.

Louis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86112

On 8/26/22 13:49, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>     https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
> 
> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
> 
> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my life 
> hell.
> 
> Lynn
> 

I've never personally had trouble with array indices but row-major vs
column-major order on matrices always gets me (especially going back and
forth between C++ and GLSL). Luckily, C++ gives you plenty of tools to
make your own arrays and matrices with the interface you prefer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86113

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 15:49:51 -0500
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>     https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
> 
> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
> 
> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my
> life hell.

Fortran is retarded.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86117

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>     https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>
> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>
> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my life 
> hell.

If you want to declare your Fortran arrays to start at zero, just
declare them with a lower bound of zero, like

  real, dimension(0:n-1) :: a

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86122

On 8/27/22 01:47, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>      https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>
>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>
>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my life
>> hell.
> 
> If you want to declare your Fortran arrays to start at zero, just
> declare them with a lower bound of zero, like
> 
>    real, dimension(0:n-1) :: a

Can you declare other lower bounds the same way?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86125

d thiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> schrieb:
> On 8/27/22 01:47, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>>      https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>>
>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>>
>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my life
>>> hell.
>> 
>> If you want to declare your Fortran arrays to start at zero, just
>> declare them with a lower bound of zero, like
>> 
>>    real, dimension(0:n-1) :: a
>
> Can you declare other lower bounds the same way?

Yes.

You can, since 1991, when Fortran 90 was released, do

  real, dimension(from:to) :: a

where from and to are arbitrary integer expressions.  (If to <
from, then you get a zero-sized array, which is perfectly valid
and which just happens to have size zero and no element).

(In Fortran, you cannot declare variables in the middle of
code.  If you want to do that, Fortran 2008 introduced the
BLOCK construct for declaring variables, much like
C's or C++'s { and }, so you can do

  read (*,*) from, to
  block
    real, dimension(from:to) :: a
    ! Use a here
  end block

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86123

Op 26.aug..2022 om 22:49 schreef Lynn McGuire:
> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>     https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
> 
> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
> 
> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my life 
> hell.
> 
> Lynn
> 

I assumed that it was done because in C x[i] is equivalent to *(x+i).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86124

On 8/27/2022 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 26.aug..2022 om 22:49 schreef Lynn McGuire:
>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>     
>> https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>
>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>
>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my 
>> life hell.
>>
>> Lynn
>>
> 
> I assumed that it was done because in C x[i] is equivalent to *(x+i).

Yup.  So Fortran x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-1).  Or, the x is 
subtracted from first: x--; *(x+i);.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86126

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On 8/27/2022 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 26.aug..2022 om 22:49 schreef Lynn McGuire:
>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>>     
>>> https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>>
>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>>
>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my 
>>> life hell.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>> 
>> I assumed that it was done because in C x[i] is equivalent to *(x+i).
>
> Yup.  So Fortran x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-1).

To be more precise, x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-lbound(x,1))

> Or, the x is 
> subtracted from first: x--; *(x+i);.

That's an f2c idiom, which is not valid C, AFAIK, because
the pointer would point before the actual array.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86127

On 8/27/2022 5:24 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> On 8/27/2022 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.aug..2022 om 22:49 schreef Lynn McGuire:
>>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>>>      
>>>> https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>>>
>>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>>>
>>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my
>>>> life hell.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>
>>> I assumed that it was done because in C x[i] is equivalent to *(x+i).
>>
>> Yup.  So Fortran x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-1).
> 
> To be more precise, x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-lbound(x,1))
> 
>> Or, the x is
>> subtracted from first: x--; *(x+i);.
> 
> That's an f2c idiom, which is not valid C, AFAIK, because
> the pointer would point before the actual array.

While the second pointer is a bad pointer, it is not a illegal pointer. 
Variables can point to anywhere, they are not illegal until referenced. 
Otherwise, code would be crashing all over the place.  If I malloc'd 
some space, then free'd the space, and did not NULL the pointer, that 
dangling pointer would crash if ever referenced (hopefully) but not if 
it just hangs around.

I wish that C/C++ would provide some sort of pointer validation but it 
does not.  I keep track of my pointers for that reason and validate them 
before using when I have some error prone code.  In 850,000 lines of F77 
and 30,000 lines of C/C++ code, I have suspicious pointers in several 
areas due to programmers suballocating malloc'd space and forgetting to 
nullify those suballocated pointers after freeing the allocated space. 
Old code, you gotta love it.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86128

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
> On 8/27/2022 5:24 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>> On 8/27/2022 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 26.aug..2022 om 22:49 schreef Lynn McGuire:
>>>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>>>>      https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>>>>
>>>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>>>>
>>>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my
>>>>> life hell.
>>>>
>>>> I assumed that it was done because in C x[i] is equivalent to *(x+i).
>>>
>>> Yup.  So Fortran x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-1).
>> To be more precise, x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-lbound(x,1))
>> 
>>> Or, the x is
>>> subtracted from first: x--; *(x+i);.
>> That's an f2c idiom, which is not valid C, AFAIK, because
>> the pointer would point before the actual array.
>
> While the second pointer is a bad pointer, it is not a illegal
> pointer. Variables can point to anywhere, they are not illegal until
> referenced. Otherwise, code would be crashing all over the place.  If
> I malloc'd some space, then free'd the space, and did not NULL the
> pointer, that dangling pointer would crash if ever referenced
> (hopefully) but not if it just hangs around.

Computing a pointer before the beginning of an array causes undefined
behavior in C and C++, even if you never dereference it.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86130

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On 8/27/2022 5:24 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>> On 8/27/2022 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 26.aug..2022 om 22:49 schreef Lynn McGuire:
>>>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>>>>      
>>>>> https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>>>>
>>>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>>>>
>>>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my
>>>>> life hell.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I assumed that it was done because in C x[i] is equivalent to *(x+i).
>>>
>>> Yup.  So Fortran x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-1).
>> 
>> To be more precise, x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-lbound(x,1))
>> 
>>> Or, the x is
>>> subtracted from first: x--; *(x+i);.
>> 
>> That's an f2c idiom, which is not valid C, AFAIK, because
>> the pointer would point before the actual array.
>
> While the second pointer is a bad pointer, it is not a illegal pointer. 
> Variables can point to anywhere, they are not illegal until referenced. 

Unfortunately not.

Looking at n2596.pdf, one finds under J.2, "Undefined behavior",

— Addition or subtraction of a pointer into, or just beyond,
an array object and an integer type produces a result that does
not point into, or just beyond, the same array object (6.5.6).

> Otherwise, code would be crashing all over the place.

Undefined behavior does not mean that the code will reliably crash.
It just says that the C standard gives no guarantee about what will
happen, and, even if it works right now, such code is at the mercy
of future compiler revisions, cosmic rays, and other forseen and
unforseen circumstances.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#86136

On 28/08/2022 09:50, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> On 8/27/2022 5:24 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>> On 8/27/2022 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 26.aug..2022 om 22:49 schreef Lynn McGuire:
>>>>>> “Why do arrays start at 0?"
>>>>>>       
>>>>>> https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/why-do-arrays-start-at-0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It's not the reason you think. No, it's not that reason either.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My Fortran starts at one.  My C++ starts at zero.  This has made my
>>>>>> life hell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I assumed that it was done because in C x[i] is equivalent to *(x+i).
>>>>
>>>> Yup.  So Fortran x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-1).
>>>
>>> To be more precise, x(i) is equivalent to *(x+i-lbound(x,1))
>>>
>>>> Or, the x is
>>>> subtracted from first: x--; *(x+i);.
>>>
>>> That's an f2c idiom, which is not valid C, AFAIK, because
>>> the pointer would point before the actual array.
>>
>> While the second pointer is a bad pointer, it is not a illegal pointer.
>> Variables can point to anywhere, they are not illegal until referenced.
> 
> Unfortunately not.
> 
> Looking at n2596.pdf, one finds under J.2, "Undefined behavior",
> 
> — Addition or subtraction of a pointer into, or just beyond,
> an array object and an integer type produces a result that does
> not point into, or just beyond, the same array object (6.5.6).
> 
>> Otherwise, code would be crashing all over the place.
> 
> Undefined behavior does not mean that the code will reliably crash.
> It just says that the C standard gives no guarantee about what will
> happen, and, even if it works right now, such code is at the mercy
> of future compiler revisions, cosmic rays, and other forseen and
> unforseen circumstances.

Indeed.

C was designed to have as few restrictions on the hardware as it could, 
while still having a minimum feature set.  If you have a segmented 
memory architecture (such as x86), then addresses might have a form 
"segment:offset".  If an array starts at offset 0, what does it mean to 
have an address one before that?  It might make no sense, or have 
different meanings in different contexts, or require inefficient extra 
instructions to get right.  Some architectures pre-load information 
about memory pages or segments when a pointer register is loaded, 
causing trouble if it does not actually point to valid memory.  Leaving 
this all undefined is much simpler for everyone.

(The other end, one past the end of the array, is too useful in common C 
idioms to leave undefined - even if it might mean that an implementation 
can't use the last address in memory.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web