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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #3440 > unrolled thread

On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays

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

Contents

  On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 04:00 +0200
    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2011-04-12 00:13 -0400
    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 05:17 +0100
      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 14:02 +0100
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 14:10 +0100
          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 14:49 +0100
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-12 10:05 -0400
    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-12 01:11 -0400
    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 23:24 -0700
      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 00:16 -0700
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 13:53 +0100
          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 14:08 +0100
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 14:05 +0100
          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 14:48 +0100
            Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:53 +1200
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 22:14 +0200
          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-04-12 15:39 -0700
      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 01:39 -0700
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-12 20:51 +1200
      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-04-12 21:51 +0000
    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cpp4ever <n2xssvv.g02gfr12930@ntlworld.com> - 2011-04-12 09:59 +0100
      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 16:25 +0200
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cpp4ever <n2xssvv.g02gfr12930@ntlworld.com> - 2011-04-12 16:07 +0100
          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 17:32 +0200
            Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cpp4ever <n2xssvv.g02gfr12930@ntlworld.com> - 2011-04-12 16:53 +0100
              Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 18:16 +0200
                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cpp4ever <n2xssvv.g02gfr12930@ntlworld.com> - 2011-04-12 17:39 +0100
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 19:32 +0200
                    Re: DILLIGAF cpp4ever <n2xssvv.g02gfr12930@ntlworld.com> - 2011-04-12 19:05 +0100
                      Re: DILLIGAF Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-12 20:36 +0200
                        Re: DILLIGAF cpp4ever <n2xssvv.g02gfr12930@ntlworld.com> - 2011-04-12 20:47 +0100
                        Re: DILLIGAF gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 14:48 -0700
                          Re: DILLIGAF Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-04-12 15:16 -0700
      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 17:48 +0100
    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-12 09:37 -0700
      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 18:34 +0100
      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 19:38 +0200
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-12 11:00 -0700
          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 20:03 +0200
            Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-12 11:06 -0700
              Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-12 20:26 +0200
                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-12 11:33 -0700
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-12 20:55 +0200
                    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 20:14 +0100
                    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-12 12:47 -0700
                      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-12 22:40 +0200
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-12 14:15 -0400
          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 20:52 +0200
            Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 20:23 +0100
            Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-12 16:01 -0400
              Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-12 13:46 -0700
                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-04-12 19:49 -0700
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-04-13 00:06 -0700
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 04:14 -0400
                    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-04-13 07:53 -0700
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 09:52 +0100
                    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 05:20 -0400
                      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 10:31 +0100
                        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:04 -0400
                          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 12:35 +0100
                            Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:41 -0400
                            Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 07:47 +1200
                              Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 11:44 +0100
                    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-04-13 18:41 +0200
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-13 09:35 -0700
                    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 20:17 +0100
                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 04:33 -0400
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 04:35 -0400
              Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 01:19 +0100
                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 04:01 -0400
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 04:20 -0400
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 09:56 +0100
                    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 05:24 -0400
                      Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 10:34 +0100
                        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:07 -0400
                          Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 12:36 +0100
                            Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:43 -0400
                              Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 13:18 +0100
                                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 08:30 -0400
              Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 15:57 +0200
                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 15:10 +0100
                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 11:09 -0400
                  Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 12:04 -0400
              Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-13 09:56 -0700
                Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 14:11 -0400
        Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 19:29 +0100
    Re: On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 09:36 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#3563

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:35:27 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:v00bq6hdv8h6oo60rginn0lljlopu1rtj5@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:31:00 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Surely you must realize that you have chosen to make a point to
>>>>>>> > debate
>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>> > wording of his statement rather than the subjectively 
>>>>>>> > misarticulated
>>>>>>> > meaning of
>>>>>>> > his response with regards to the former example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my opinion I didn't "miss-articulate". The void* type is an 
>>>>>>> "opaque
>>>>>>> type" rather than a pointer. The standard calls it "pointer to void"
>>>>>>> but as we all know there's no such thing as a "void object". The
>>>>>>> standard also has all kinds of special clauses for this type. Alf has
>>>>>>> also already claimed that the standard is not useful in defining
>>>>>>> conversational language about C++. The only alternative that I can
>>>>>>> think of is to speak in concepts.
>>>>>
>>>>>>So lets take char*. It is pointer to char (a byte).
>>>>>
>>>>>Its a pointer type declaration. The statement, on its own,  doesn't even
>>>>>create a pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >char const* hi = "Hello World";
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you have a pointer of type char*, which addresses a byte.
>>>>>What does it point to? Its quite obvious, it points to a char array. If
>>>>>you
>>>>>want to get specific you can say it points to the first element but
>>>>>primarily it points to an array.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know anyone who say in conversational language looking at that
>>>>>>code that hi points to first byte in string literal. It is true but no
>>>>>>one will say such silly nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>No its not silly nonsesne to say, for example: that new[] returns a
>>>>>pointer
>>>>>to the first element of an array, sometimes it is ok to be specific.
>>>>>What IS silly nonsense is to say that because it points to the first
>>>>>element, it doesn't point to the array.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, you are misunderstanding the entire nature of the discussion.
>>>> It is not merely because it points to <snip>
>>>
>>>Apparently you think you define the langauge. Well you don't and you
>>>blatantly refuse to acknowledge what is defined in the C++ standards.
>> You mistake me thinking that I define the language with my ability to 
>> correctly
>> cite the Standard.
>>
>>>
>>>Until you can accept the C++ language, as defined in the standards, please
>>>keep your stupid, annoying posts out of my discussions.
>> I wholeheartedly accept the Standard, that's why I am not afraid to 
>> include the
>> section number, title, and paragraph, when I cite it.
>>
>There is a big section in the C++ standards titled ARRAYS.
I know, I have quoted to you from that very section.

>It fully details the behaviour of pointers to arrays in the C++ language.
It sure does, but where you and I differ is that my citation is applicable and
yours is not.

>
>If you go away and read that instead of posting your bullshit incorrect 
>opinions then you'd do everyone a big favour.
> . 
LOL i bet you want me to go away.  As I said, I did read it.  I do not see
anything there that agrees with your assertion.

Stop dodging the question.  What section of the Standard agrees with your
assertion that int* points to an array?

If you're saying that it does, and you certainly seem to be in a dodgy sort of
way, then prove it.

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

#3594

On 04/13/11 11:35 PM, Paul wrote:
>>
> There is a big section in the C++ standards titled ARRAYS.
> It fully details the behaviour of pointers to arrays in the C++ language.

Come on get it right, either "There is a big section in the C++ 
standard" or "There are big sections in the C++ standards".  Which is 
it?  Which other standard is relevant here?

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#3655

"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:90mcusFeeiU5@mid.individual.net...
> On 04/13/11 11:35 PM, Paul wrote:
>>>
>> There is a big section in the C++ standards titled ARRAYS.
>> It fully details the behaviour of pointers to arrays in the C++ language.
>
> Come on get it right, either "There is a big section in the C++ standard" 
> or "There are big sections in the C++ standards".  Which is it?  Which 
> other standard is relevant here?
>
> -- 
> Ian Collins
>
What are you on about idiot?

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

#3584

"Paul" <> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Evdpp.39723$9z4.1733@newsfe14.ams2...
> "Öö Tiib" <> wrote in message
> news:0b431f63-1eb0-4ec2-87a3-fe325f4e63da@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 12, 11:46 pm, Noah Roberts <d...@email.me> wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2011 1:01 PM, cg_chas wrote:
>>>
>>> > Surely you must realize that you have chosen to make a point to debate the
>>> > wording of his statement rather than the subjectively misarticulated
>>> > meaning of
>>> > his response with regards to the former example.
>>>
>>> In my opinion I didn't "miss-articulate". The void* type is an "opaque
>>> type" rather than a pointer. The standard calls it "pointer to void"
>>> but as we all know there's no such thing as a "void object". The
>>> standard also has all kinds of special clauses for this type. Alf has
>>> also already claimed that the standard is not useful in defining
>>> conversational language about C++. The only alternative that I can
>>> think of is to speak in concepts.
>
>>So lets take char*. It is pointer to char (a byte).
>
> Its a pointer type declaration. The statement, on its own,  doesn't even
> create a pointer.
>
>
> >char const* hi = "Hello World";
>
> Now you have a pointer of type char*, which addresses a byte.
> What does it point to? Its quite obvious, it points to a char array. If you
> want to get specific you can say it points to the first element but primarily
> it points to an array.

char *hi= "Hello World";

point to the first char of the array;
someone can say it point that string "Hello World"
yes it is possible to say that

hi++ point to second char of the string etc etc
basically one pointer is a couple
(address, TYPE ) [could be well for C or C++]

or better
i say the sizeof(TYPE) pointer is a ordered couple of numbers
(address, sizeof(TYPE))
the first one i call it "the address" the second one
i call it "increment" [this definition is not
ok seen from C or C++ languages because in these
languages pointers to different types
that have the same size have different type
but for me the type is the same]

it is no matter if in that address there is no
memory for this program
it is a pointer
(0, 0) (0, 1) (0, 2) etc are all NULL pointers
void *a=0 means a==(0, 0)

when someone increment by one, the pointer
increment the address by sizeof(TYPE)

when someone want to read what the point  point
read sizeof(TYPE) bytes of memory address..(address+sizeof(type))

when someone increment by i the value of one pointer
increment the address by value i*sizeof(Type)
all mathematics

end with pointers.

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

#3583

On 4/12/2011 7:49 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:46 pm, Noah Roberts<d...@email.me>  wrote:
>> On 4/12/2011 1:01 PM, cg_chas wrote:
>>
>>> Surely you must realize that you have chosen to make a point to debate the
>>> wording of his statement rather than the subjectively misarticulated meaning of
>>> his response with regards to the former example.
>>
>> In my opinion I didn't "miss-articulate".  The void* type is an "opaque
>> type" rather than a pointer.  The standard calls it "pointer to void"
>> but as we all know there's no such thing as a "void object".  The
>> standard also has all kinds of special clauses for this type.  Alf has
>> also already claimed that the standard is not useful in defining
>> conversational language about C++.  The only alternative that I can
>> think of is to speak in concepts.
>
> So lets take char*. It is pointer to char (a byte).
>
>   char const* hi = "Hello World";
>
> I don't know anyone who say in conversational language looking at that
> code that hi points to first byte in string literal.
[rudeness snipped]

Then obviously such people don't consider it a pointer.  Do they treat 
it like a pointer or do they treat it like a null-terminated string literal?

You're still performing a category error.  If we need a language to 
discuss pointers that includes things like shared_ptr and other smart 
pointers (which are not, standardly speaking, pointers) then we need to 
discuss terms.  A pointer concept is, again, the only thing I can think 
of that provides a reasonable alternative to the standard language.  The 
concept of course adds things not considered pointers by the standard 
and we might also assume that it excludes things that are (such as void*).

Of course, people who are still using char* for strings are stuck in the 
old days.  Further, they're use of incorrect language to call any char 
const* a string literal is bound to cause them problems some day.  If we 
want a reasonable, correct, useful conversational language than a better 
response is probably that 'hi' happens to point INTO a string literal at 
the moment.

-- 
http://crazycpp.wordpress.com

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

#3592

"Noah Roberts" <dont@email.me> wrote in message 
news:4da5d0b7$0$29270$cc2e38e6@news.uslec.net...
> On 4/12/2011 7:49 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 11:46 pm, Noah Roberts<d...@email.me>  wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2011 1:01 PM, cg_chas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Surely you must realize that you have chosen to make a point to debate 
>>>> the
>>>> wording of his statement rather than the subjectively misarticulated 
>>>> meaning of
>>>> his response with regards to the former example.
>>>
>>> In my opinion I didn't "miss-articulate".  The void* type is an "opaque
>>> type" rather than a pointer.  The standard calls it "pointer to void"
>>> but as we all know there's no such thing as a "void object".  The
>>> standard also has all kinds of special clauses for this type.  Alf has
>>> also already claimed that the standard is not useful in defining
>>> conversational language about C++.  The only alternative that I can
>>> think of is to speak in concepts.
>>
>> So lets take char*. It is pointer to char (a byte).
>>
>>   char const* hi = "Hello World";
>>
>> I don't know anyone who say in conversational language looking at that
>> code that hi points to first byte in string literal.
> [rudeness snipped]
>
> Then obviously such people don't consider it a pointer.  Do they treat it 
> like a pointer or do they treat it like a null-terminated string literal?
>
> You're still performing a category error.  If we need a language to 
> discuss pointers that includes things like shared_ptr and other smart 
> pointers (which are not, standardly speaking, pointers) then we need to 
> discuss terms.  A pointer concept is, again, the only thing I can think of 
> that provides a reasonable alternative to the standard language.  The 
> concept of course adds things not considered pointers by the standard and 
> we might also assume that it excludes things that are (such as void*).
>
> Of course, people who are still using char* for strings are stuck in the 
> old days.  Further, they're use of incorrect language to call any char 
> const* a string literal is bound to cause them problems some day.  If we 
> want a reasonable, correct, useful conversational language than a better 
> response is probably that 'hi' happens to point INTO a string literal at 
> the moment.
>
> -- 
Slightly inssne, I funno

> http://crazycpp.wordpress.com 

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

#3543

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:46:18 -0700, Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> wrote:

>On 4/12/2011 1:01 PM, cg_chas wrote:
>
>> Surely you must realize that you have chosen to make a point to debate the
>> wording of his statement rather than the subjectively misarticulated meaning of
>> his response with regards to the former example.
>
>In my opinion I didn't "miss-articulate".  The void* type is an "opaque 
>type" rather than a pointer.  The standard calls it "pointer to void" 
>but as we all know there's no such thing as a "void object".  The 
>standard also has all kinds of special clauses for this type.  Alf has 
>also already claimed that the standard is not useful in defining 
>conversational language about C++.  The only alternative that I can 
>think of is to speak in concepts.
Fair enough.  Perhaps I was too bold with my assumptions.
I do agree with the nature of your point, as I've said.

>
>The standard calls anything that looks like "type*" as a "pointer type". 
>  Alf doesn't like using the standard for the definition of "pointer" so 
>I gave him a different one based on generic programming (and I was quite 
>explicit about it by calling "pointer" a concept).  Such a definition is 
>perfectly consistent and allows for "smart pointers" (which Alf claimed 
>needed to be included) but is not *perfectly* consistent with the 
>language of the standard, which Alf has already discounted as authority 
>on this matter.
This concerns me too. Which is why I gave him a definition that is accurate and
resides outside of the Standard.  In both cases, his assertion that an int*
points to an array fails to hold up.

>
>Alf on the other hand has not provided any other definition of pointer 
>that has any consistency.  All he's done is say that "type*" can be a 
>pointer to array if the address it contains happens to be part of an 
>array.  There's no useful definition of "pointer" that would seem to 
>allow for this.  His only response to my explanation was to call it 
>silly and run back to the language of the standard (which seems to only 
>apply when it suits him).
Exactly.

>
>We can either agree to the language of the standard, in which case void* 
>is a pointer that points at void and smart pointers are not pointers at 
>all, or we can use something else useful to talk about "things that 
>point at stuff".  In this later regard we can think of multiple reasons 
>why "void*" is inconsistent with the concept of "pointer"; one 
>particularly reasonable example of this is that iterator_traits cannot 
>be instantiated on this type and iterators are pretty much the 
>definition of "pointer" as a concept.
I personally am not fond of void* or even NULL ptr being used as exceptions to a
statement (your statement) that was intended to address a specific concrete
example, but when people find themselves against the wall logically, this is the
type of response you get, I guess.

>
>Alf has called the former too "pedantic and useless" but has yet to 
>provide a useful alternative.  I tried and got a pile of troll-shit for 
>thanks.  Frankly I don't care if he wishes to continue asserting 
>absurdities and calling them truth and he can live in my killfile now.
I would like to think that he will at least respond to the direct question
below:

Alf, how does your logical assertion that an int* can "dynamically" point to an
array fit into the pointer definition below?

For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type T* can
hold the address of an object of type T.

Just because he has not responded yet, does not mean that he won't.  I am
generally more patient than that and my perceptions of Alf, given that he has
actually helped others in the past per my observation, is not no poor.

He should at least answer this or provide an authoritative well-defined pointer
definition alternative that asserts his case. If he does choose to remain
silent, then we pretty much know what that means.

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

#3544

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:33:52 -0400, cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:46:18 -0700, Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> wrote:
>
>>On 4/12/2011 1:01 PM, cg_chas wrote:
>>
>>> Surely you must realize that you have chosen to make a point to debate the
>>> wording of his statement rather than the subjectively misarticulated meaning of
>>> his response with regards to the former example.
>>
>>In my opinion I didn't "miss-articulate".  The void* type is an "opaque 
>>type" rather than a pointer.  The standard calls it "pointer to void" 
>>but as we all know there's no such thing as a "void object".  The 
>>standard also has all kinds of special clauses for this type.  Alf has 
>>also already claimed that the standard is not useful in defining 
>>conversational language about C++.  The only alternative that I can 
>>think of is to speak in concepts.
>Fair enough.  Perhaps I was too bold with my assumptions.
>I do agree with the nature of your point, as I've said.
>
>>
>>The standard calls anything that looks like "type*" as a "pointer type". 
>>  Alf doesn't like using the standard for the definition of "pointer" so 
>>I gave him a different one based on generic programming (and I was quite 
>>explicit about it by calling "pointer" a concept).  Such a definition is 
>>perfectly consistent and allows for "smart pointers" (which Alf claimed 
>>needed to be included) but is not *perfectly* consistent with the 
>>language of the standard, which Alf has already discounted as authority 
>>on this matter.
>This concerns me too. Which is why I gave him a definition that is accurate and
>resides outside of the Standard.  In both cases, his assertion that an int*
>points to an array fails to hold up.
>
>>
>>Alf on the other hand has not provided any other definition of pointer 
>>that has any consistency.  All he's done is say that "type*" can be a 
>>pointer to array if the address it contains happens to be part of an 
>>array.  There's no useful definition of "pointer" that would seem to 
>>allow for this.  His only response to my explanation was to call it 
>>silly and run back to the language of the standard (which seems to only 
>>apply when it suits him).
>Exactly.
>
>>
>>We can either agree to the language of the standard, in which case void* 
>>is a pointer that points at void and smart pointers are not pointers at 
>>all, or we can use something else useful to talk about "things that 
>>point at stuff".  In this later regard we can think of multiple reasons 
>>why "void*" is inconsistent with the concept of "pointer"; one 
>>particularly reasonable example of this is that iterator_traits cannot 
>>be instantiated on this type and iterators are pretty much the 
>>definition of "pointer" as a concept.
>I personally am not fond of void* or even NULL ptr being used as exceptions to a
>statement (your statement) that was intended to address a specific concrete
>example, but when people find themselves against the wall logically, this is the
>type of response you get, I guess.
>
>>
>>Alf has called the former too "pedantic and useless" but has yet to 
>>provide a useful alternative.  I tried and got a pile of troll-shit for 
>>thanks.  Frankly I don't care if he wishes to continue asserting 
>>absurdities and calling them truth and he can live in my killfile now.
>I would like to think that he will at least respond to the direct question
>below:
>
>Alf, how does your logical assertion that an int* can "dynamically" point to an
>array fit into the pointer definition below?
>
>For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type T* can
>hold the address of an object of type T.
>
>Just because he has not responded yet, does not mean that he won't.  I am
>generally more patient than that and my perceptions of Alf, given that he has
>actually helped others in the past per my observation, is not no poor.
should have read "not so poor"
>
>He should at least answer this or provide an authoritative well-defined pointer
>definition alternative that asserts his case. If he does choose to remain
>silent, then we pretty much know what that means.

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

#3530

"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ia89q6tlh5hi93d2chk2nnks7s04lutga1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:52:13 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
<snip>
>
> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly the
> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to respond 
> to
> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the scope 
> of this
> thread.
>
> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to admit.
>
> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced that 
> you are
> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and well-defined
> terminology.
>
> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion that an 
> int*
> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition below?
>
> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type 
> T* can
> hold the address of an object of type T.
>

Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further definition in 
the section about arrays.
I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections that 
basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an (n-1) 
dimensional array.

If it wasn't for the fact that i have told you this so many times and you 
refuse to accept this definition from the C++ standards, I would refrain 
from calling you and most of the other total fucking idiots in this thread, 
exactly that.

Plonk.

<snip>

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

#3540

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:19:21 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ia89q6tlh5hi93d2chk2nnks7s04lutga1@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:52:13 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
><snip>
>>
>> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly the
>> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to respond 
>> to
>> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the scope 
>> of this
>> thread.
>>
>> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to admit.
>>
>> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced that 
>> you are
>> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and well-defined
>> terminology.
>>
>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion that an 
>> int*
>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition below?
>>
>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type 
>> T* can
>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>
>
>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further definition in 
>the section about arrays.
>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections that 
>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an (n-1) 
>dimensional array.

Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a direct
question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.

But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is a
mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers to
_multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this discussion is
a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving yourself wrong
when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually applicable.

>
>If it wasn't for the fact that i have told you this so many times
oh we are speaking in "matters of fact"?

I will actually do so then. Know that section 8.3.4 paragraph 7 of the '03
Standard is in no way a form of proof that an int* points to an array. 

It is, however, an assertion that for the case of a multi-dimensional array such
as for the case of:

int a[2][2]={1,2,3,4};
int (*p)[2] = a;
std::cout << "p type is : " << typeid(p).name() << std::endl;

As you have so many times asserted that p points to a multi-dimensional array,
the part of the Standard that you incessantly cite without rational thought is
well-defined as well is disproves your assertion.

This is what 8.3.4 defines and nothing else.
std::cout << "a[0] type is : " << typeid(a[0]).name() << std::endl;

> and you 
>refuse to accept this definition from the C++ standards, I would refrain 
>from calling you and most of the other total fucking idiots in this thread, 
>exactly that.
Regardless of how many times you say it and regardless of how many times you
discredit yourself with insult and profanity, you are incapable of properly
applying any citation because you are incompetent.

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

#3542

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:01:59 -0400, cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:19:21 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>news:ia89q6tlh5hi93d2chk2nnks7s04lutga1@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:52:13 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
>><snip>
>>>
>>> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly the
>>> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to respond 
>>> to
>>> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the scope 
>>> of this
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to admit.
>>>
>>> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced that 
>>> you are
>>> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and well-defined
>>> terminology.
>>>
>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion that an 
>>> int*
>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition below?
>>>
>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type 
>>> T* can
>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>
>>
>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further definition in 
>>the section about arrays.
>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections that 
>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an (n-1) 
>>dimensional array.
>
>Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a direct
>question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>
>But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is a
>mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers to
>_multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this discussion is
>a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving yourself wrong
>when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually applicable.
>
>>
>>If it wasn't for the fact that i have told you this so many times
>oh we are speaking in "matters of fact"?
>
>I will actually do so then. Know that section 8.3.4 paragraph 7 of the '03
>Standard is in no way a form of proof that an int* points to an array. 
>
>It is, however, an assertion that for the case of a multi-dimensional array such
>as for the case of:
>
>int a[2][2]={1,2,3,4};
>int (*p)[2] = a;
>std::cout << "p type is : " << typeid(p).name() << std::endl;
>
>As you have so many times asserted that p points to a multi-dimensional array,
>the part of the Standard that you incessantly cite without rational thought is
>well-defined as well is disproves your assertion.
>
>This is what 8.3.4 defines and nothing else.
this should read 8.3.4 paragraph 7, not all of 8.3.4
>std::cout << "a[0] type is : " << typeid(a[0]).name() << std::endl;
>
>> and you 
>>refuse to accept this definition from the C++ standards, I would refrain 
>>from calling you and most of the other total fucking idiots in this thread, 
>>exactly that.
>Regardless of how many times you say it and regardless of how many times you
>discredit yourself with insult and profanity, you are incapable of properly
>applying any citation because you are incompetent.

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

#3546

"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:43laq6dlj1q5u7ckqah7edfloklp94hdm2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:19:21 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ia89q6tlh5hi93d2chk2nnks7s04lutga1@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:52:13 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
>><snip>
>>>
>>> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly the
>>> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to respond
>>> to
>>> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the scope
>>> of this
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to admit.
>>>
>>> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced that
>>> you are
>>> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and well-defined
>>> terminology.
>>>
>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion that 
>>> an
>>> int*
>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition 
>>> below?
>>>
>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type
>>> T* can
>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>
>>
>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further definition 
>>in
>>the section about arrays.
>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections that
>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an 
>>(n-1)
>>dimensional array.
>
> Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a direct
> question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>
> But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is a
> mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers to
> _multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this 
> discussion is
> a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving yourself 
> wrong
> when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually 
> applicable.
>

You obviously cannot read or understand the C++ standards.
IDIOT
Plonk..

<snip>. 

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

#3548

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:56:10 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:43laq6dlj1q5u7ckqah7edfloklp94hdm2@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 01:19:21 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ia89q6tlh5hi93d2chk2nnks7s04lutga1@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:52:13 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly the
>>>> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to respond
>>>> to
>>>> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the scope
>>>> of this
>>>> thread.
>>>>
>>>> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to admit.
>>>>
>>>> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced that
>>>> you are
>>>> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and well-defined
>>>> terminology.
>>>>
>>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion that 
>>>> an
>>>> int*
>>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition 
>>>> below?
>>>>
>>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type
>>>> T* can
>>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further definition 
>>>in
>>>the section about arrays.
>>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections that
>>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an 
>>>(n-1)
>>>dimensional array.
>>
>> Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a direct
>> question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>>
>> But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is a
>> mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers to
>> _multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this 
>> discussion is
>> a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving yourself 
>> wrong
>> when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually 
>> applicable.
>>
>
>You obviously cannot read or understand the C++ standards.
Read what exactly?  The only one who is bothering to cite a valid part of the
Standard is me. In this case it is 8.3.4 paragraph 7 that explicitly refers to
multi-dimensional arrays.

To what case do you refer?  Or are you neglecting to name it because you want it
to serve your point telepathically rather than rationally?

>IDIOT
Your word, and it serves you most appropriately.

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

#3553

"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:cpqaq6t15qd21cuse4ihtj5m821imfnokm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:56:10 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly 
>>>>> the
>>>>> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to 
>>>>> respond
>>>>> to
>>>>> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the 
>>>>> scope
>>>>> of this
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to admit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced 
>>>>> that
>>>>> you are
>>>>> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and 
>>>>> well-defined
>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion that
>>>>> an
>>>>> int*
>>>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition
>>>>> below?
>>>>>
>>>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of 
>>>>> type
>>>>> T* can
>>>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further definition
>>>>in
>>>>the section about arrays.
>>>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections 
>>>>that
>>>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an
>>>>(n-1)
>>>>dimensional array.
>>>
>>> Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a 
>>> direct
>>> question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>>>
>>> But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is a
>>> mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers to
>>> _multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this
>>> discussion is
>>> a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving yourself
>>> wrong
>>> when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually
>>> applicable.
>>>
>>
>>You obviously cannot read or understand the C++ standards.
> Read what exactly?  The only one who is bothering to cite a valid part of 
> the
> Standard is me. In this case it is 8.3.4 paragraph 7 that explicitly 
> refers to
> multi-dimensional arrays.

Read the relevant sections about pointers to arrays.

>
> To what case do you refer?  Or are you neglecting to name it because you 
> want it
> to serve your point telepathically rather than rationally?
>
>>IDIOT
> Your word, and it serves you most appropriately.

The word was used to describe you. A spade is a spade.

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

#3558

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:34:11 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:cpqaq6t15qd21cuse4ihtj5m821imfnokm@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:56:10 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to 
>>>>>> respond
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the 
>>>>>> scope
>>>>>> of this
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to admit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> you are
>>>>>> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and 
>>>>>> well-defined
>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion that
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> int*
>>>>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition
>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of 
>>>>>> type
>>>>>> T* can
>>>>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further definition
>>>>>in
>>>>>the section about arrays.
>>>>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections 
>>>>>that
>>>>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an
>>>>>(n-1)
>>>>>dimensional array.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a 
>>>> direct
>>>> question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>>>>
>>>> But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is a
>>>> mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers to
>>>> _multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this
>>>> discussion is
>>>> a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving yourself
>>>> wrong
>>>> when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually
>>>> applicable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You obviously cannot read or understand the C++ standards.
>> Read what exactly?  The only one who is bothering to cite a valid part of 
>> the
>> Standard is me. In this case it is 8.3.4 paragraph 7 that explicitly 
>> refers to
>> multi-dimensional arrays.
>
>Read the relevant sections about pointers to arrays.
I have. Was there something specific that you feel one of them says that asserts
your case that an int* points to an array?

>
>>
>> To what case do you refer?  Or are you neglecting to name it because you 
>> want it
>> to serve your point telepathically rather than rationally?
>>
>>>IDIOT
>> Your word, and it serves you most appropriately.
>
>The word was used to describe you. A spade is a spade.
I ask again since you feel avoiding the debate by calling names is the best way
to handle being wrong.

To what case do you refer?  Or are you neglecting to name it because you want it
 to serve your point telepathically rather than rationally?

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

#3562

"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:qr0bq656o4rqrnea4ubtucjsoh27m4sees@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:34:11 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to
>>>>>>> respond
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the
>>>>>>> scope
>>>>>>> of this
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to 
>>>>>>> admit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and
>>>>>>> well-defined
>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> int*
>>>>>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition
>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of
>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>> T* can
>>>>>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further 
>>>>>>definition
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the section about arrays.
>>>>>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an
>>>>>>(n-1)
>>>>>>dimensional array.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a
>>>>> direct
>>>>> question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>>>>>
>>>>> But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is a
>>>>> mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers to
>>>>> _multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this
>>>>> discussion is
>>>>> a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving 
>>>>> yourself
>>>>> wrong
>>>>> when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually
>>>>> applicable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You obviously cannot read or understand the C++ standards.
>>> Read what exactly?  The only one who is bothering to cite a valid part 
>>> of
>>> the
>>> Standard is me. In this case it is 8.3.4 paragraph 7 that explicitly
>>> refers to
>>> multi-dimensional arrays.
>>
>>Read the relevant sections about pointers to arrays.
> I have. Was there something specific that you feel one of them says that 
> asserts
> your case that an int* points to an array?

Read it again then , you obviously don't understand it.

And keep reading it until you do understand it. 

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

#3564

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:36:49 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:qr0bq656o4rqrnea4ubtucjsoh27m4sees@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:34:11 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Snipping the greater points in my response, to myself, and certainly
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "general consensus" is a sign that you have simply chosen not to
>>>>>>>> respond
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> greater points and not because they are actually irrelevant in the
>>>>>>>> scope
>>>>>>>> of this
>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alf, context has greater value than I think you are willing to 
>>>>>>>> admit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and
>>>>>>>> well-defined
>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion 
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> int*
>>>>>>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition
>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of
>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>> T* can
>>>>>>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further 
>>>>>>>definition
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>the section about arrays.
>>>>>>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields an
>>>>>>>(n-1)
>>>>>>>dimensional array.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a
>>>>>> direct
>>>>>> question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is a
>>>>>> mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers to
>>>>>> _multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this
>>>>>> discussion is
>>>>>> a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving 
>>>>>> yourself
>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>> when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually
>>>>>> applicable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You obviously cannot read or understand the C++ standards.
>>>> Read what exactly?  The only one who is bothering to cite a valid part 
>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>> Standard is me. In this case it is 8.3.4 paragraph 7 that explicitly
>>>> refers to
>>>> multi-dimensional arrays.
>>>
>>>Read the relevant sections about pointers to arrays.
>> I have. Was there something specific that you feel one of them says that 
>> asserts
>> your case that an int* points to an array?
>
>Read it again then , you obviously don't understand it.
Read what section exactly? Surely you must know if you expect it to validate
your assertion that an int* technically also points to an array.

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

#3565

"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:cv2bq6dgi2vje2c5u7uppicv8a5qmadrin@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:36:49 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> int*
>>>>>>>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer 
>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable 
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>> T* can
>>>>>>>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further
>>>>>>>>definition
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>the section about arrays.
>>>>>>>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields 
>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>(n-1)
>>>>>>>>dimensional array.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a
>>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>> question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is 
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> _multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this
>>>>>>> discussion is
>>>>>>> a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving
>>>>>>> yourself
>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>> when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually
>>>>>>> applicable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You obviously cannot read or understand the C++ standards.
>>>>> Read what exactly?  The only one who is bothering to cite a valid part
>>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>> Standard is me. In this case it is 8.3.4 paragraph 7 that explicitly
>>>>> refers to
>>>>> multi-dimensional arrays.
>>>>
>>>>Read the relevant sections about pointers to arrays.
>>> I have. Was there something specific that you feel one of them says that
>>> asserts
>>> your case that an int* points to an array?
>>
>>Read it again then , you obviously don't understand it.
> Read what section exactly?

THE FUCKIN SECTION ABOUT POINTERS TO ARRAYS.

FFS stop being so stupid , how many times do I have to explain?

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

#3567

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:18:46 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:cv2bq6dgi2vje2c5u7uppicv8a5qmadrin@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:36:49 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> int*
>>>>>>>>>> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer 
>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable 
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>> T* can
>>>>>>>>>> hold the address of an object of type T.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because, with pointers to arrays the standard makes a further
>>>>>>>>>definition
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>the section about arrays.
>>>>>>>>>I have told you this numerous times and quoted the relevant sections
>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>basically explain..When dereferenced, a pointer to an array yields 
>>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>>(n-1)
>>>>>>>>>dimensional array.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting that Paul should feel the need to step up and answer a
>>>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>>> question to Alf, that Alf has yet to respond to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But since he did, aside from the painfully obvious fact that this is 
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> mis-citation because this section of the Standard explicitly refers 
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> _multi-dimensional arrays_, and the controversial example in this
>>>>>>>> discussion is
>>>>>>>> a 1-dimensiona array, you fail to realize that you are proving
>>>>>>>> yourself
>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>> when you yourself fail to apply this case for when it is actually
>>>>>>>> applicable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You obviously cannot read or understand the C++ standards.
>>>>>> Read what exactly?  The only one who is bothering to cite a valid part
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Standard is me. In this case it is 8.3.4 paragraph 7 that explicitly
>>>>>> refers to
>>>>>> multi-dimensional arrays.
>>>>>
>>>>>Read the relevant sections about pointers to arrays.
>>>> I have. Was there something specific that you feel one of them says that
>>>> asserts
>>>> your case that an int* points to an array?
>>>
>>>Read it again then , you obviously don't understand it.
>> Read what section exactly?
>
>THE FUCKIN SECTION ABOUT POINTERS TO ARRAYS.
>
>FFS stop being so stupid , how many times do I have to explain?
>
You have explained nothing.  I have read the entire section.  I have also cited
specific NUMBERED section titles.

Do you have a number or not?  Im guessing no, thats why all you ever are able to
say is "the standards agree with me".

Well if they do, then point out the exact section with title, number, and
paragraph number that agrees with your assertion that an int* points to an
array.

Can you do that?  I think not.

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

#3569

* cg_chas, on 12.04.2011 22:01:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:52:13 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
> <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> No, what Noah wrote, which is quoted in context above, was
>>
>>
>>    "To claim that a pointer points at anything other than what you get when you
>>     dereference it flies in the face ofthe concept of "pointer".
>
> Yes I read and understood his statement expressely for the face value of every
> word in the sentence.  Where we differ though is that I can see the greater
> value in his point regardless if he botched the wording or not.

I'm sure that with enough empathy any self-contradictory statement can be viewed 
as an attempted expression of some beautiful thought.

But, you can't require utmost precision of others, and think your own side is 
exempt from that requirement.

At least if you want to be taken seriously.



[snip]

> Since I can see the logic in your rebuttle to Noah, I am convinced that you are
> not ignorant to the importance of technical correctness and well-defined
> terminology.

Ah, good.


> So, let me ask you this directly. How does your logical assertion that an int*
> can "dynamically" point to an array fit into the pointer definition below?
>
> For a type T, T* is the type "pointer to T." That is, a variable of type T* can
> hold the address of an object of type T.

For most of us there is no problem.

Consider this function:

   void upcase( char* p )

If caller and implementor disagree on whether p points to single char object, or 
to a zero-terminated string, or whatever, then result might be core dump...

Now I pass by your desk and see you struggling with this function. Someone has 
noticed that too many core dumps seem to indicate that this 'upcase' function is 
the culprit, and you are attempting to fix it. As I pass you by you remark on 
the competentency (or lack thereof) of the original programmer, "jeez, this call 
to toupper passes negative values, he forgot to cast!".

I glance at it, and remark "he he, and he also seems to have assumed he's passed 
a pointer to a single char, instead of a pointer to a string!".

You say, "pointer to string? that's technically meaningless! see, here, it says 
'char*"

I think you're joking, and go on to whatever I was going to.

Two days later I notice that you're STILL struggling with the 'upcase' function.

What's going on, I ask you. How come you're still working on that trivial function?

As it turns out, after fixing the cast issue (which caused UB in the standard 
library) you thought you'd fixed it, but you got it back. No more core dumps, 
OK, but it doesn't pass the unit tests anymore. And you cannot figure out *why*.

I look at it, and say, "hey, that p, it's surely a pointer to a string?".

You just shake your head sadly, "Sorry Alf, that's meaningless, a 'char*' can't 
point to a string, it can only point to a 'char', that's what the type is about. 
But thanks for your attempt to help. Argh, this is really difficult: the code is 
trivial, yet it doesn't pass unit tests; do you have any other idea?"

I consider suggesting that you change the textual function declaration, like 
'void upcase( char s[] )', but it doesn't take more than a milli-second of 
reflection to see that you would not see the point of that. I could expect some 
retort like "Alf, Alf, thanks, but that means exactly the same, so it would not 
help with the unit test issue". And likewise for some other suggestions.

So, I just fetch myself yet another cup of coffee, and leave you to it.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

-- 
blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web