Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #2801 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-03-29 10:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-03-31 23:08 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 196 — 15 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: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-29 10:27 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-29 23:32 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 01:53 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 03:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 09:52 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 11:44 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 19:44 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 20:18 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-30 04:30 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 10:33 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 11:39 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 15:38 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 16:14 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:06 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:15 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:22 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:38 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 00:42 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 00:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 02:22 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 23:44 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 10:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-31 06:13 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 04:00 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:14 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 07:01 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 15:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 08:10 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 18:20 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 01:14 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-01 11:53 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 05:11 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-01 15:32 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 11:24 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-02 01:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-02 23:32 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-03 13:21 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 02:47 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-04 13:33 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 11:06 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-04 20:17 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-05 05:00 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-05 15:59 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 03:08 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 16:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-04-06 15:36 +0000
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 10:23 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 18:53 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 19:01 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 19:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 19:30 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 11:53 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-06 17:31 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-07 09:47 +1200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 15:14 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 15:15 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 23:13 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 23:35 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-07 14:20 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 12:56 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-07 21:47 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unread@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 06:54 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 08:45 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unread@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 18:01 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 18:09 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-08 20:25 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 19:45 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-08 21:14 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 21:08 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-08 22:52 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 00:52 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 09:06 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 07:53 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 18:12 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 18:22 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 19:51 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 19:54 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 21:10 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 23:44 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-11 12:40 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 04:53 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-11 14:05 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 06:20 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran Pusic <goranp@cse-semaphore.com> - 2011-04-11 07:33 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:42 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-11 17:56 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-11 13:16 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-12 08:09 +1200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 00:19 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 04:04 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 13:49 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 13:41 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 06:48 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 17:20 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 23:43 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 11:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:13 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:19 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 08:31 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:30 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 13:50 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 07:28 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 16:26 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 18:02 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 19:08 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 19:45 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 20:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 21:10 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 23:04 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 23:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 23:31 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 23:33 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 01:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 13:31 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:34 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:49 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:58 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 16:43 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 17:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 18:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 19:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 19:43 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 19:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 22:19 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 22:27 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 22:53 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> - 2011-04-14 15:28 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 01:11 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 01:35 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 12:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 05:06 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 13:19 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 06:37 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 06:54 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 16:45 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 05:56 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:30 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-15 10:44 +1200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 00:14 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 01:22 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 12:35 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 05:05 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 13:26 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 06:35 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 16:48 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 08:50 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-17 18:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-19 01:16 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-19 11:42 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-19 05:02 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 16:29 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 05:09 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 18:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 23:23 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 09:34 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 05:36 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-01 12:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 05:46 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 07:21 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 13:04 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:16 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:26 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:37 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:44 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-30 16:04 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 14:04 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 20:02 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 20:21 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:47 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 00:12 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 11:36 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 05:26 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 13:41 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 06:28 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 15:00 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 07:47 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:14 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 10:33 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 20:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 23:31 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 04:46 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 05:16 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 09:01 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 18:23 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-03-31 21:32 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 20:37 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-31 16:13 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 21:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-03-31 22:55 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 23:06 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 23:43 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-01 12:12 +1300
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson) - 2011-03-31 23:08 +0000
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-04 20:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <WOomp.2165$bT6.1137@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3092 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:549af0b7-ad06-4525-a820-be05a7dbe240@w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Apr 4, 2:33 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > My original question was: > > Suppose I have the following code: > > > int (*p)[5] = (int (*)[5])new int[5]; > > > How do I delete the allocated memory? > > And my original answer was: you allocated an array of ints, you should > call delete[] on the pointer to the first element of that array, which > was returned from "new. Easy as a pie. That is, your code should be: > > int *p = new int[5]; > delete [] p; > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > No, All you said was that is was UB. Not true. This: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/b8ed179f99440d11 was my first response to your question. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes and after I answered this you said the cast was UB. And thats what this particular subthread has been about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-05 05:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <547d4b50-fa91-4990-9448-db647ac0d088@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3098 |
On Apr 4, 9:17 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:549af0b7-ad06-4525-a820-be05a7dbe240@w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 4, 2:33 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > My original question was: > > > Suppose I have the following code: > > > > int (*p)[5] = (int (*)[5])new int[5]; > > > > How do I delete the allocated memory? > > > And my original answer was: you allocated an array of ints, you should > > call delete[] on the pointer to the first element of that array, which > > was returned from "new. Easy as a pie. That is, your code should be: > > > int *p = new int[5]; > > delete [] p; > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > No, All you said was that is was UB. > > Not true. > > This: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/b8ed179f99440d11 > > was my first response to your question. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Yes and after I answered this you said the cast was UB. My point was: it's not true that __all__ (emphasis added for better reading comprehension) I said here was that your code had UB. I said much more than that, and what you said was nonsense. > And thats what this > particular subthread has been about. Not for me. For me, this thread was about you trying to pass questionable-to-downright-unusable code as proof that a "pointer to T" is somehow also a "pointer to array of T", and me trying to dissuade you from that, with calm and rational thinking (as opposed to calling people names, sending them insulting mails to their mailboxes and what ever else that you did). Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-05 15:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <77Gmp.7894$o81.6543@newsfe28.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3148 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:547d4b50-fa91-4990-9448-db647ac0d088@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Apr 4, 9:17 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:549af0b7-ad06-4525-a820-be05a7dbe240@w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 4, 2:33 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > My original question was: > > > Suppose I have the following code: > > > > int (*p)[5] = (int (*)[5])new int[5]; > > > > How do I delete the allocated memory? > > > And my original answer was: you allocated an array of ints, you should > > call delete[] on the pointer to the first element of that array, which > > was returned from "new. Easy as a pie. That is, your code should be: > > > int *p = new int[5]; > > delete [] p; > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > No, All you said was that is was UB. > > Not true. > > This: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/b8ed179f99440d11 > > was my first response to your question. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Yes and after I answered this you said the cast was UB. My point was: it's not true that __all__ (emphasis added for better reading comprehension) I said here was that your code had UB. I said much more than that, and what you said was nonsense. > And thats what this > particular subthread has been about. Not for me. For me, this thread was about you trying to pass questionable-to-downright-unusable code as proof that a "pointer to T" is somehow also a "pointer to array of T", and me trying to dissuade you from that, with calm and rational thinking (as opposed to calling people names, sending them insulting mails to their mailboxes and what ever else that you did). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of T. I don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 03:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e231743-baf7-4412-b0b4-26fa2e093350@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3162 |
On Apr 5, 4:59 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of T. I > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. 1. int i; int* pi = &i; What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? 2. int a[3]; int (*pa)[3] = &a; if p __is__ a pointer to array, what is pa? I believe language disagrees with your claim here. 3. int a[3]; int* p = a; Here, we __commonly say__ that p is a pointer to array. But p is __not__ a pointer to array. Instead, e.g. in "int (pa)[3] = &a;", __pa__ is a pointer to array. Your claim leads to confusion and errors, and is possibly the reason why you want to write code such as that you've shown us here (downright wrong, like Base/Derived example, very unsafe like template<> foo example, and also at odds with what's prescribed, like your very first example). Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 16:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uA%mp.3535$Vm5.3071@newsfe30.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3202 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2e231743-baf7-4412-b0b4-26fa2e093350@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... On Apr 5, 4:59 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of T. I > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. 1. int i; int* pi = &i; What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array: int* p_to_array = new int[5]; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2. int a[3]; int (*pa)[3] = &a; if p __is__ a pointer to array, what is pa? I believe language disagrees with your claim here. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx pa is also a pointer to an array, its just a different type of pointer. pa is the same type of pointer generally used to point to a 2d array. If pa is dereferneced it returns a 1dim array, thus obeying the C++ language rules for arrays. Your use of the &addressof operator is simply creating a pointer that needs to be dereferenced twice to access the array. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3. int a[3]; int* p = a; Here, we __commonly say__ that p is a pointer to array. But p is __not__ a pointer to array. Instead, e.g. in "int (pa)[3] = &a;", __pa__ is a pointer to array. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx No p is a pointer to an array of 3 ints, that's why we commonly say .it's a pointer to an array. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your claim leads to confusion and errors, and is possibly the reason why you want to write code such as that you've shown us here (downright wrong, like Base/Derived example, very unsafe like template<> foo example, and also at odds with what's prescribed, like your very first example). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You certainly seem confused, I'm not. A pointer to a 1d array is dereferenced once to return an element: p_arr_1d[0]; A pointer to a 2d array is dereferneced twice to return an element: p_arr_2d[0][0]; With your theory you think a pointer to a 1d array is like so : int (*p)[5] = &a_1d_array; All this does it make a pointer which has another level of indircetion and would unneccessarily need to be dereferenced twice to access the array. (*p)[0]; You, and many others, are obviously unable to garsp the simple facts of how pointers to arrays work in C++ . For this reason and many other unreasonable arguments I have seen in these forums , I am going to try and stop reading this shit and eventually I will have fully plonked this well and trully disgusting newsgroup that is full of arseholes know-it-alls who don't have a clue, but they actually think they are expert programmers. Clueless arseholes with no personailty, only bad personality, and too much time to spend reading documents they dont understand. Just look at your point 1 to see how much of an unreasonable idiotic arsehole you are. What goes through your idiot brain? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar2003@boltar.world |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 15:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ini1a5$kdu$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3211 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 16:24:04 +0100 "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Just look at your point 1 to see how much of an unreasonable idiotic >arsehole you are. What goes through your idiot brain? Seems to me a classic case of what happens when someone who's learnt high level C++ or Java is now trying to learn the low level C part of the language. I've seen it time and time again. A very good reason why anyone who interviews for a C++ job interview should also be interviewed to test their C knowledge too since if they don't understand pointers, arrays, pointer arithmetic and the like there's a good chance they'll eventually mess something up badly. B2003
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d493b13c-99b3-4aec-a9cc-bde53d0c890d@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3211 |
On Apr 6, 5:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2e231743-baf7-4412-b0b4-26fa2e093350@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 4:59 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of T. I
> > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language.
>
> 1.
>
> int i;
> int* pi = &i;
>
> What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a
> pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct,
> even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken?
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't
> point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array:
> int* p_to_array = new int[5];
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5].
But OK, I see what is your problem: you don't understand the
difference between __is__ and __points to__. That's what's confusing
you. No biggie, I can explain that to you. Consider:
class A {};
class B : public A {};
A a;
B b;
A* p=&a; // p __is__ a pointer to A and it points to an A.
p = &b; // p __is__ a pointer to A, but it points to a B.
The above is an example of a pointer that __is__ one thing (a pointer
to an A), but can __point to__ two different types. Types related, but
different nonetheless. See, there's a difference between __is__ and
__points to__? Relevant one at that, too.
Consider also:
TYPE* p; int i; int a[2]; int* p1=i; int* p2=a;
Now... Expression (*p) is of type T&. Expression (p->) is also of type
T&. That much is clear. Same for p1.
But what about p2? Following your claim and basic logic, it's int[2]&,
which is, of course, utter nonsense.
Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JM1np.20827$9z4.2067@newsfe14.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3216 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d493b13c-99b3-4aec-a9cc-bde53d0c890d@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 5:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2e231743-baf7-4412-b0b4-26fa2e093350@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 4:59 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of T.
> > I
> > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language.
>
> 1.
>
> int i;
> int* pi = &i;
>
> What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a
> pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct,
> even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken?
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't
> point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array:
> int* p_to_array = new int[5];
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5].
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the array.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But OK, I see what is your problem: you don't understand the
difference between __is__ and __points to__. That's what's confusing
you. No biggie, I can explain that to you. Consider:
class A {};
class B : public A {};
A a;
B b;
A* p=&a; // p __is__ a pointer to A and it points to an A.
p = &b; // p __is__ a pointer to A, but it points to a B.
The above is an example of a pointer that __is__ one thing (a pointer
to an A), but can __point to__ two different types. Types related, but
different nonetheless. See, there's a difference between __is__ and
__points to__? Relevant one at that, too.
Consider also:
TYPE* p;
int i;
int a[2];
int* p1=i;
int* p2=a;
Now... Expression (*p) is of type T&. Expression (p->) is also of type
T&. That much is clear. Same for p1.
But what about p2? Following your claim and basic logic, it's int[2]&,
which is, of course, utter nonsense.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What a load of bollocks.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 19:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tuKdnSE-h6rwNwHQnZ2dnUVZ7sWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3218 |
On 06/04/2011 18:53, Paul wrote: > > "Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d493b13c-99b3-4aec-a9cc-bde53d0c890d@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 6, 5:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2e231743-baf7-4412-b0b4-26fa2e093350@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 5, 4:59 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of >> T. > I >> > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. >> >> 1. >> >> int i; >> int* pi = &i; >> >> What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a >> pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, >> even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't >> point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array: >> int* p_to_array = new int[5]; >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Only a pointer to an array can point to an array; p_to_array is erroneously named as it points to an int not an array. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 19:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pd2np.24319$5t2.20587@newsfe06.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3219 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:tuKdnSE-h6rwNwHQnZ2dnUVZ7sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 06/04/2011 18:53, Paul wrote: >>> > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of >>> T. > I >>> > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> int i; >>> int* pi = &i; >>> >>> What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a >>> pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, >>> even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't >>> point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array: >>> int* p_to_array = new int[5]; >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the array. >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Only a pointer to an array can point to an array; p_to_array is > erroneously named as it points to an int not an array. > The only thing erroneous is your statement that p doesn't point to an array. void* p_to_leighs_head = (void*)zero_sized_array_of_leighs_brain_cells;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 19:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nIWdnYarDszDLAHQnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3220 |
On 06/04/2011 19:24, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:tuKdnSE-h6rwNwHQnZ2dnUVZ7sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 06/04/2011 18:53, Paul wrote: >>>> > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of >>>> T. > I >>>> > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> int i; >>>> int* pi = &i; >>>> >>>> What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a >>>> pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, >>>> even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? >>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>> The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer >>>> doesn't >>>> point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array: >>>> int* p_to_array = new int[5]; >>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the >>> array. >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >> >> Only a pointer to an array can point to an array; p_to_array is >> erroneously named as it points to an int not an array. >> > The only thing erroneous is your statement that p doesn't point to an > array. What is "p" exactly? I see no variable named "p" here. > > void* p_to_leighs_head = (void*)zero_sized_array_of_leighs_brain_cells; Again you show you n00bness: conversion to void* is implicit so your (void*) C-style cast is superfluous. Also you should prefer C++-style casts to C-style casts (not doing so is another sign of n00bness). HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <165e3c6f-18f4-4117-ba0c-d838eaef21e5@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3218 |
On Apr 6, 7:53 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:d493b13c-99b3-4aec-a9cc-bde53d0c890d@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 6, 5:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:2e231743-baf7-4412-b0b4-26fa2e093350@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 5, 4:59 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of T. > > > I > > > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. > > > 1. > > > int i; > > int* pi = &i; > > > What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a > > pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, > > even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't > > point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array: > > int* p_to_array = new int[5]; > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Consider this: int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; So you say that p points to the array. That's aa[0]. If p points to aa[0], then ++p must point to aa[1]. That's what incrementing a pointer does. Obviously, this is not true. ++p points to a[0][1]. In other words, your claim, that p points to an array, is false. Because if it were true, simple things like pointer arithmetic wouldn't work. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v9mpp6datctvsotcgk40plub1h76pnq5ij@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3222 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 6, 7:53 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d493b13c-99b3-4aec-a9cc-bde53d0c890d@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 6, 5:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:2e231743-baf7-4412-b0b4-26fa2e093350@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... >> > On Apr 5, 4:59 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of T. >> > > I >> > > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. >> >> > 1. >> >> > int i; >> > int* pi = &i; >> >> > What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a >> > pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, >> > even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? >> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't >> > point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array: >> > int* p_to_array = new int[5]; >> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the array. >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >Consider this: > >int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; > >So you say that p points to the array. That's aa[0]. If p points to >aa[0], then ++p must point to aa[1]. That's what incrementing a >pointer does. > >Obviously, this is not true. ++p points to a[0][1]. > >In other words, your claim, that p points to an array, is false. >Because if it were true, simple things like pointer arithmetic >wouldn't work. >Goran. You are correct of course, but I made this exact point in more than one of Paul's threads. It is also true that using logic on Paul doesn't work either because he is not here to learn, nor does he listen to any post that uses simple logic to make valid points. Surely his next reply will be to either call you an idiot or go on about something else while ignoring the proof regarding pointer arithmetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 09:47 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9045cdFjv6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3227 |
On 04/ 7/11 09:31 AM, cg_chas wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Goran<goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In other words, your claim, that p points to an array, is false. >> Because if it were true, simple things like pointer arithmetic >> wouldn't work. > >> Goran. > > You are correct of course, but I made this exact point in more than one of > Paul's threads. It is also true that using logic on Paul doesn't work either > because he is not here to learn, nor does he listen to any post that uses simple > logic to make valid points. Surely his next reply will be to either call you an > idiot or go on about something else while ignoring the proof regarding pointer > arithmetic. And he still won't have worked out how to configure is new client. It really is time to stop trying to reason with this bloke. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adc50cba-1113-4f2d-bed6-ed1952801702@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3227 |
On Apr 6, 2:31 pm, cg_chas <cg_c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > You are correct of course, but I made this exact point in more than one of > Paul's threads. It is also true that using logic on Paul doesn't work either > because he is not here to learn, nor does he listen to any post that uses simple > logic to make valid points. Surely his next reply will be to either call you an > idiot or go on about something else while ignoring the proof regarding pointer > arithmetic. Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of "logic". If it was a matter of proving something wrong with a deductive argument, then this would not persist so long. The entire discussion is over terminology. Given sufficient time, and some prodding, Paul could probably conclude the same as the rest of us as to which programs are UB and which have defined results, and what are those results (assuming he's not a troll). Paul just adamantly chooses to use our terminology. He makes arguments with his own unique set of words and definitions, and he argues that his definitions are the "right" ones, which makes useful discussion near impossible. As a separate point, one could prove that he's wrong on a separate but related point about which set of words are in common usage, but it appears that he's so steeped in his certainty that he is correct that he will not listen (or he's a troll). I merely mean to emphasize that the problem is over which definitions of words should we use, which usually makes for the most useless discussions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0788a87-ba70-4d90-8851-8072308f2ee6@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3230 |
On Apr 6, 3:14 pm, Joshua Maurice <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Paul just adamantly chooses to use our terminology. Ack. Should read: "Paul just adamantly *refuses* to use our terminology."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 23:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <_86np.2960$Ir.1849@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3222 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:165e3c6f-18f4-4117-ba0c-d838eaef21e5@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... On Apr 6, 7:53 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of > > > T. > > > I > > > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. > > > 1. > > > int i; > > int* pi = &i; > > > What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a > > pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, > > even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't > > point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array: > > int* p_to_array = new int[5]; > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Consider this: int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; So you say that p points to the array. That's aa[0]. If p points to aa[0], then ++p must point to aa[1]. That's what incrementing a pointer does. Obviously, this is not true. ++p points to a[0][1]. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes p points to an array. Just because pointer arithmetic confuses you, doesn't mean p doesn't point to an array. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In other words, your claim, that p points to an array, is false. Because if it were true, simple things like pointer arithmetic wouldn't work. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I didn't claim p pointed to anything because I haven't replied to it until now. :-S Can you be an any bigger arsehole that you are now? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-06 23:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e250d164-6fb3-44d6-8511-ab93620de436@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3233 |
On Apr 7, 12:13 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:165e3c6f-18f4-4117-ba0c-d838eaef21e5@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 6, 7:53 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of > > > > T. > > > > I > > > > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. > > > > 1. > > > > int i; > > > int* pi = &i; > > > > What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a > > > pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, > > > even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer doesn't > > > point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an array: > > > int* p_to_array = new int[5]; > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the array. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Consider this: > > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; > > So you say that p points to the array. That's aa[0]. If p points to > aa[0], then ++p must point to aa[1]. That's what incrementing a > pointer does. > > Obviously, this is not true. ++p points to a[0][1]. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Yes p points to an array. Just because pointer arithmetic confuses you, > doesn't mean p doesn't point to an array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OK, say that I am confused. You say that P points to X. I say, fine, when I increment it, it must point to next X (this is a __very__ simple truth of the language). And yet, incremented, P __does not__ point to X. So either P does not point to X, either incrementing it does not work. Which is true? Show the flaw in, my logic, or in yours. Or show logic that reconciles the two. Claims like "Just because pointer arithmetic confuses you, doesn't mean p doesn't point to an array" is neither logic nor explanation. It's an assertion that means nothing if not based in something tangible. It's like a kid saying in a school playground: "Martians exist, my dad saw them". Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BSinp.1079$6W.941@newsfe21.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3245 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e250d164-6fb3-44d6-8511-ab93620de436@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Apr 7, 12:13 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:165e3c6f-18f4-4117-ba0c-d838eaef21e5@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 6, 7:53 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of > > > > T. > > > > I > > > > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. > > > > 1. > > > > int i; > > > int* pi = &i; > > > > What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a > > > pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, > > > even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer > > > doesn't > > > point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an > > > array: > > > int* p_to_array = new int[5]; > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the > > array. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Consider this: > > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; > > So you say that p points to the array. That's aa[0]. If p points to > aa[0], then ++p must point to aa[1]. That's what incrementing a > pointer does. > > Obviously, this is not true. ++p points to a[0][1]. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Yes p points to an array. Just because pointer arithmetic confuses you, > doesn't mean p doesn't point to an array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OK, say that I am confused. You say that P points to X. I say, fine, when I increment it, it must point to next X (this is a __very__ simple truth of the language). And yet, incremented, P __does not__ point to X. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Why would you be incrementing something if you didn't know what it pointed to? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So either P does not point to X, either incrementing it does not work. Which is true? Show the flaw in, my logic, or in yours. Or show logic that reconciles the two. Claims like "Just because pointer arithmetic confuses you, doesn't mean p doesn't point to an array" is neither logic nor explanation. It's an assertion that means nothing if not based in something tangible. It's like a kid saying in a school playground: "Martians exist, my dad saw them". Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8b5f588-4dbb-4fc2-a593-de353c67538b@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3264 |
On Apr 7, 3:20 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e250d164-6fb3-44d6-8511-ab93620de436@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 12:13 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:165e3c6f-18f4-4117-ba0c-d838eaef21e5@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 6, 7:53 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array of > > > > > T. > > > > > I > > > > > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. > > > > > 1. > > > > > int i; > > > > int* pi = &i; > > > > > What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a > > > > pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and correct, > > > > even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is broken? > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer > > > > doesn't > > > > point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an > > > > array: > > > > int* p_to_array = new int[5]; > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the > > > array. > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Consider this: > > > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; > > > So you say that p points to the array. That's aa[0]. If p points to > > aa[0], then ++p must point to aa[1]. That's what incrementing a > > pointer does. > > > Obviously, this is not true. ++p points to a[0][1]. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Yes p points to an array. Just because pointer arithmetic confuses you, > > doesn't mean p doesn't point to an array. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > OK, say that I am confused. You say that P points to X. I say, fine, > when I increment it, it must point to next X (this is a __very__ > simple truth of the language). And yet, incremented, P __does not__ > point to X. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Why would you be incrementing something if you didn't know what it pointed > to? > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a (obviously false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web