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

#3507

Am 12.04.2011 20:06, schrieb Noah Roberts:
> On 4/12/2011 11:03 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>>  * Noah Roberts, on 12.04.2011 20:00:
>>>  On 4/12/2011 10:38 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Do you now see that that's an impractical, silly view?
>>>
>>>  No, but I can now see that you're just trolling.
>>
>>  Goodbye, Noah.
>>
>>
> Exactly.
>

Troll-calling is almost as bad a name calling. Alf made a legitimate 
statement, and it has been a neutral discussion until the troll calling. 
That narrow-minded "don't want to hear" attitude is just the same as 
Paul's - an unability to accept or at least consider others' points when 
they do not match your own. Just because Alf's statement goes into the 
direction of Paul's views, that alone does not justify calling him a troll.


Peter

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

#3509

On 4/12/2011 11:26 AM, Peter Remmers wrote:
> Am 12.04.2011 20:06, schrieb Noah Roberts:
>> On 4/12/2011 11:03 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>>> * Noah Roberts, on 12.04.2011 20:00:
>>>> On 4/12/2011 10:38 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you now see that that's an impractical, silly view?
>>>>
>>>> No, but I can now see that you're just trolling.
>>>
>>> Goodbye, Noah.
>>>
>>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>
> Troll-calling is almost as bad a name calling. Alf made a legitimate
> statement, and it has been a neutral discussion until the troll calling.

I don't see responding to argument by calling people's views silly to be 
"neutral".  I see it as nothing short a trolling tactic.  Your opinion 
obviously differs.

Normally Alf doesn't troll and I didn't call him one.  He is now though.

-- 
http://crazycpp.wordpress.com

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

#3513

Am 12.04.2011 20:33, schrieb Noah Roberts:
> On 4/12/2011 11:26 AM, Peter Remmers wrote:
>>  Am 12.04.2011 20:06, schrieb Noah Roberts:
>>>  On 4/12/2011 11:03 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>>>>  * Noah Roberts, on 12.04.2011 20:00:
>>>>>  On 4/12/2011 10:38 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Do you now see that that's an impractical, silly view?
>>>>>
>>>>>  No, but I can now see that you're just trolling.
>>>>
>>>>  Goodbye, Noah.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  Exactly.
>>>
>>
>>  Troll-calling is almost as bad a name calling. Alf made a legitimate
>>  statement, and it has been a neutral discussion until the troll calling.
>
> I don't see responding to argument by calling people's views silly to be
> "neutral".  I see it as nothing short a trolling tactic.  Your opinion
> obviously differs.
>
> Normally Alf doesn't troll and I didn't call him one.  He is now though.
>

I wouldn't perceive that to be an insulting name calling quite yet.

Fact is that there are two sides. There's the object that lives at a 
certain memory location and that has a type. And then there's the 
pointer that holds the object's address, and that also has a type.

As long as the types agree, all is well. The problems start as soon as 
they differ. There are levels in between. There are "compatible" types, 
or the pointer points to a subobject of a matching type, etc.

I totally agree with Alf that it is impractical, and thus silly, to 
close your eyes for one of the two sides. You close your eyes for one 
side, Paul for the other.


Peter

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

#3516

"Peter Remmers" <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message 
news:4da4a039$0$6771$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
> Am 12.04.2011 20:33, schrieb Noah Roberts:
>>>>>>>  Do you now see that that's an impractical, silly view?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  No, but I can now see that you're just trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Goodbye, Noah.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  Exactly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Troll-calling is almost as bad a name calling. Alf made a legitimate
>>>  statement, and it has been a neutral discussion until the troll 
>>> calling.
>>
>> I don't see responding to argument by calling people's views silly to be
>> "neutral".  I see it as nothing short a trolling tactic.  Your opinion
>> obviously differs.
>>
>> Normally Alf doesn't troll and I didn't call him one.  He is now though.
>>
>
> I wouldn't perceive that to be an insulting name calling quite yet.
>
> Fact is that there are two sides. There's the object that lives at a 
> certain memory location and that has a type. And then there's the pointer 
> that holds the object's address, and that also has a type.
>
> As long as the types agree, all is well. The problems start as soon as 
> they differ. There are levels in between. There are "compatible" types, or 
> the pointer points to a subobject of a matching type, etc.
>
> I totally agree with Alf that it is impractical, and thus silly, to close 
> your eyes for one of the two sides. You close your eyes for one side, Paul 
> for the other.
>
Yes there are two sides:
a) People like me who accept what the standard defines about pointers to 
arrays. That is, when dereferenced, a pointer to an array yeilds an (n-1) 
dimensional array.

b) Idiots who don't accept this.

I believe the majority of people invovled in this discussion, including you, 
are on side b. As for Alf, he obviously thinks he is some expert nowadays 
and perhaps he is to some but hes no different to me now than he was when I 
was correcting him 15 years ago.

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

#3519

On 4/12/2011 11:55 AM, Peter Remmers wrote:

> I totally agree with Alf that it is impractical, and thus silly, to
> close your eyes for one of the two sides. You close your eyes for one
> side, Paul for the other.

You are bordering on troll behavior here too.  My eyes are not closed. 
I gave a response to Alf's side, he responded poorly, and I decided the 
conversation was pointless.  I gave him a chance even though he wasn't 
actually making any new points regarding the conversation.

I consider the issue dead.  Those who want to continue misusing the term 
"pointer to array" are not convincible by ANY measure.  Alf for instance 
is simply responding to all argument to the contrary by calling it 
"lawyeresque".  It's not worth my time.

Now, if you want to call that closing my eyes then I really don't give a 
damn.  I'm not going to be responding any further.  You can either take 
it as a difference of opinion or you can continue riding your high horse 
and lecturing me about your perceived ills.  If you expect me to justify 
myself to you then that's YOUR problem.

-- 
http://crazycpp.wordpress.com

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

#3523

Am 12.04.2011 21:47, schrieb Noah Roberts:
> On 4/12/2011 11:55 AM, Peter Remmers wrote:
>
>>  I totally agree with Alf that it is impractical, and thus silly, to
>>  close your eyes for one of the two sides. You close your eyes for one
>>  side, Paul for the other.
>
> You are bordering on troll behavior here too.  My eyes are not closed.

You are pretty quick with the word troll. If stating an opinion that you 
don't like constitutes trolling then you're no better than Paul, because 
accusing someone of trolling for no better reason is no less of an 
insult than direct name calling. You may as well be honest and use the 
word "idiot" or something and don't masquerade your insults behind the 
word "troll"...

You wrote:

 >> int a[42];
 >> > int* p2 = a; // OK, p2 is a pointer to an array (dynamically).
 >> >
 > No.  The p2 variable is a pointer to int because an int is what you get
 > when you dereference it.

You're not closing your eyes? That statement is correct but it is only 
one side of the story.

> I gave a response to Alf's side, he responded poorly, and I decided the
> conversation was pointless.  I gave him a chance even though he wasn't
> actually making any new points regarding the conversation.

What chance? You were not content with his answer and unholstered your 
troll-calling gun. Nice shootin' cowboy.


> I consider the issue dead.  Those who want to continue misusing the term
> "pointer to array" are not convincible by ANY measure.  Alf for instance
> is simply responding to all argument to the contrary by calling it
> "lawyeresque".  It's not worth my time.
>
> Now, if you want to call that closing my eyes then I really don't give a
> damn.  I'm not going to be responding any further.  You can either take
Yeah. "Don't give a damn". Join Paul's and cpp4ever's club.

> it as a difference of opinion or you can continue riding your high horse
> and lecturing me about your perceived ills.  If you expect me to justify
> myself to you then that's YOUR problem.
>

I'm just saying that fanatically defending a viewpoint, no matter which, 
with questionable methods, be it direct insults or troll accusations, 
and completely denying the validity of other possible POVs is a bad thing.


Peter

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

#3505

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:38:53 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
<alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>* Noah Roberts, on 12.04.2011 18:37:
>> On 4/11/2011 7:00 PM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>> The second way in which a pointer can point to an array, is the answer
>>> to question 3, namely
>>>
>>> int a[42];
>>> int* p2 = a; // OK, p2 is a pointer to an array (dynamically).
>>>
>>
>> No.
>
>That's silly (see below).
>
>
>> The p2 variable is a pointer to int because an int is what you get when you
>> dereference it.
>
>Yes.
>
>
>>> 3) And a pointer of type T* be said to point to an array of T, but only
>>> in the dynamic sense, like "right now it points to an array".
>>
>>
>> The other important part of pointers is that when the point to elements of an
>> array, you can perform math on them. This fact though does not change what type
>> you get when you dereference the pointer. To claim that a pointer points at
>> anything other than what you get when you dereference it flies in the face of
>> the concept of "pointer".
>
>Here is one counter-example to your claim:
>
>   int x;
>   void* p = &x;
>
>p cannot be derferenced. Hence in your view a claim that it points to/at x 
>"flies in the face of the concept of pointer".
Ok now I am starting to think that you and Paul are drinking from the same well.
:)

Of course a void pointer is an exception. We could also cast the pointer to an
infinite number of types and expect infinitely different types of yielded
values.

He does not assert that all pointers must be dereferenceable, just that
dereferencing the int* in the former example yields an int.

Or perhaps it is you who are saying that void* p = &x initialized p thus making
it a pointer to int that cannot be dereferenced, because then I would say that
you are confused.

A void* is not an int* regardless of the address it holds.  Similarly an int*
does not point to an array regardless of the address that the array starts on.

You may _feel_ this is semantics, but the three sources I quoted you say
otherwise, and they are quite authoritative, aside from having undergone several
revisions for accuracy and technical correctness.

>
>Do you now see that that's an impractical, silly view?
If you mean your view, then yes, I do see the impracticality.

Your response is no less silly than a typical Paul example such as:
int* PointerToArray = new int[5];

A good rule of thumb that is not silly is:

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.

You can say that this rule is silly too, but this rule holds up to your void*
example as well as asserts that for the case of:

int a[42];
int* p2 = a;

where:
T is int
T* is int*
int* is the type pointer to int
p2 points to an int

If the technical correctness of this seems silly to you then I respect your
point of view, but I assert that I am on quite solid ground with the knowledge
that an int* does not point to an array unless you change its type to do so.

>
>
>Cheers & hth.,
>
>- Alf

Best Regards & hth.,

Charles

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

#3511

* cg_chas, on 12.04.2011 20:15:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:38:53 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
> <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> * Noah Roberts, on 12.04.2011 18:37:
>>> On 4/11/2011 7:00 PM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The second way in which a pointer can point to an array, is the answer
>>>> to question 3, namely
>>>>
>>>> int a[42];
>>>> int* p2 = a; // OK, p2 is a pointer to an array (dynamically).
>>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> That's silly (see below).
>>
>>
>>> The p2 variable is a pointer to int because an int is what you get when you
>>> dereference it.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>>> 3) And a pointer of type T* be said to point to an array of T, but only
>>>> in the dynamic sense, like "right now it points to an array".
>>>
>>>
>>> The other important part of pointers is that when the point to elements of an
>>> array, you can perform math on them. This fact though does not change what type
>>> you get when you dereference the pointer. To claim that a pointer points at
>>> anything other than what you get when you dereference it flies in the face of
>>> the concept of "pointer".
>>
>> Here is one counter-example to your claim:
>>
>>    int x;
>>    void* p =&x;
>>
>> p cannot be derferenced. Hence in your view a claim that it points to/at x
>> "flies in the face of the concept of pointer".
> Ok now I am starting to think that you and Paul are drinking from the same well.
> :)

Don't know about Paul, because he's in my killfile.

But in case it was not obvious, the above exemplifies a direct 
self-contradiction in Noah's view.

I think that when a self-contradiction is pointed out, then about the least 
reasonable response is to snip the short argument and add a personal attack. 
Hence, I plonked him, also because of his earlier allegations about sexual 
deviations of Johannes Schaub. And similarly, in the case of Paul, killfiled in 
part because of earlier allegations about sexual deviations of Francis 
Glasborrow, and in the case of Leigh I remember killfiling him for a tirade 
about Pete Becker, on top of generally trollish behavior, but I may have been 
wrong, judging from glimpses I've had. But at least regarding Paul and Noah, 
these folks are really *real* trolls, people who just love to stir up a fight 
and who write all kinds of nasty stuff about others, make no mistake about it.


> Of course a void pointer is an exception. We could also cast the pointer to an
> infinite number of types and expect infinitely different types of yielded
> values.
>
> He does not assert that all pointers must be dereferenceable, just that
> dereferencing the int* in the former example yields an int.

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".


If, then, he supported the claim that


   p points to x


then he would be claiming that p points to something other than what you get 
when you dereference it, and hence in his own view that support for the 
statement "p points to x" would fly in the face of the concept of "pointer".

Hence Noah cannot reasonably be supporting the view that p points to x.

However, just about everybody else would agree that p points to x.

I am guessing that for example you, too, agree with that.

Be that as it may (about your agreement or not), Noah's view, where p cannot 
point to anything, is not in line with the general consensus about the 
terminology here. And so it is quite irrelevant as an argument about pointers 
that point to arrays, or not. Invalid is invalid, however sweet it may sound.

[snipped irrelevant argumentantion]


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

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

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

#3517

"Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in 
message news:io2710$1hr$1@dont-email.me...
>* cg_chas, on 12.04.2011 20:15:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:38:53 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
>> <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> * Noah Roberts, on 12.04.2011 18:37:
>>>> On 4/11/2011 7:00 PM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The second way in which a pointer can point to an array, is the answer
>>>>> to question 3, namely
>>>>>
>>>>> int a[42];
>>>>> int* p2 = a; // OK, p2 is a pointer to an array (dynamically).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> That's silly (see below).
>>>
>>>
>>>> The p2 variable is a pointer to int because an int is what you get when 
>>>> you
>>>> dereference it.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 3) And a pointer of type T* be said to point to an array of T, but 
>>>>> only
>>>>> in the dynamic sense, like "right now it points to an array".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The other important part of pointers is that when the point to elements 
>>>> of an
>>>> array, you can perform math on them. This fact though does not change 
>>>> what type
>>>> you get when you dereference the pointer. To claim that a pointer 
>>>> points at
>>>> anything other than what you get when you dereference it flies in the 
>>>> face of
>>>> the concept of "pointer".
>>>
>>> Here is one counter-example to your claim:
>>>
>>>    int x;
>>>    void* p =&x;
>>>
>>> p cannot be derferenced. Hence in your view a claim that it points to/at 
>>> x
>>> "flies in the face of the concept of pointer".
>> Ok now I am starting to think that you and Paul are drinking from the 
>> same well.
>> :)
>
> Don't know about Paul, because he's in my killfile.
>
> But in case it was not obvious, the above exemplifies a direct 
> self-contradiction in Noah's view.
>
> I think that when a self-contradiction is pointed out, then about the 
> least reasonable response is to snip the short argument and add a personal 
> attack. Hence, I plonked him, also because of his earlier allegations 
> about sexual deviations of Johannes Schaub. And similarly, in the case of 
> Paul, killfiled in part because of earlier allegations about sexual 
> deviations of Francis Glasborrow, and in the case of Leigh I remember 
> killfiling him for a tirade about Pete Becker, on top of generally 
> trollish behavior, but I may have been wrong, judging from glimpses I've 
> had. But at least regarding Paul and Noah, these folks are really *real* 
> trolls, people who just love to stir up a fight and who write all kinds of 
> nasty stuff about others, make no mistake about it.
>
I didn't make any allegations about Francis sexual deviatons, as you say, I 
said he had a Big Gay Following and I believe you were one of those 
followers. :-)

TY for categorizing me as a *real* troll. :-)

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

#3521

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:52:13 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
<alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>* cg_chas, on 12.04.2011 20:15:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:38:53 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
>> <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> * Noah Roberts, on 12.04.2011 18:37:
>>>> On 4/11/2011 7:00 PM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The second way in which a pointer can point to an array, is the answer
>>>>> to question 3, namely
>>>>>
>>>>> int a[42];
>>>>> int* p2 = a; // OK, p2 is a pointer to an array (dynamically).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> That's silly (see below).
>>>
>>>
>>>> The p2 variable is a pointer to int because an int is what you get when you
>>>> dereference it.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 3) And a pointer of type T* be said to point to an array of T, but only
>>>>> in the dynamic sense, like "right now it points to an array".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The other important part of pointers is that when the point to elements of an
>>>> array, you can perform math on them. This fact though does not change what type
>>>> you get when you dereference the pointer. To claim that a pointer points at
>>>> anything other than what you get when you dereference it flies in the face of
>>>> the concept of "pointer".
>>>
>>> Here is one counter-example to your claim:
>>>
>>>    int x;
>>>    void* p =&x;
>>>
>>> p cannot be derferenced. Hence in your view a claim that it points to/at x
>>> "flies in the face of the concept of pointer".
>> Ok now I am starting to think that you and Paul are drinking from the same well.
>> :)
>
>Don't know about Paul, because he's in my killfile.
>
>But in case it was not obvious, the above exemplifies a direct 
>self-contradiction in Noah's view.
>
>I think that when a self-contradiction is pointed out, then about the least 
>reasonable response is to snip the short argument and add a personal attack. 
>Hence, I plonked him, also because of his earlier allegations about sexual 
>deviations of Johannes Schaub. And similarly, in the case of Paul, killfiled in 
>part because of earlier allegations about sexual deviations of Francis 
>Glasborrow, and in the case of Leigh I remember killfiling him for a tirade 
>about Pete Becker, on top of generally trollish behavior, but I may have been 
>wrong, judging from glimpses I've had. But at least regarding Paul and Noah, 
>these folks are really *real* trolls, people who just love to stir up a fight 
>and who write all kinds of nasty stuff about others, make no mistake about it.

I cannot really comment on any who you mention except for myself and Paul.  I am
not beyond getting caught up in the banters of a troll, but what Paul does that
I have not seen anybody else do is continuously use wildly profane language in
the form of insults, vulgarity, and even a threat of violence.

Not to mention, he has misquoted the Standard at least three times during my
writing this response alone.

He is not just a troll, he is arguably mentally disturbed by any measure and I
have made posts that indicate just that.  I could easily be labelled a troll for
doing so and I accept anybody's rights to place my posts in their killfile as
well.

That's enough on that subject for me.

>
>
>> Of course a void pointer is an exception. We could also cast the pointer to an
>> infinite number of types and expect infinitely different types of yielded
>> values.
>>
>> He does not assert that all pointers must be dereferenceable, just that
>> dereferencing the int* in the former example yields an int.
>
>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.

In retrospect, I am sure he would agree that a better choice of words would be
in order to withstand your case of the void* 

I am also equally certain that it would not be hard for him to choose those
words without breaking his assertion that when you dereference a pointer, the
yield is of the same type the pointer points to _when_ you can dereference.

Your rebutting point could have easily been initialization to a NULL ptr for
which case his statement also would not have not been technically valid.

>
>
>If, then, he supported the claim that
>
>
>   p points to x
>
>
>then he would be claiming that p points to something other than what you get 
>when you dereference it, and hence in his own view that support for the 
>statement "p points to x" would fly in the face of the concept of "pointer".
>
>Hence Noah cannot reasonably be supporting the view that p points to x.
>
>However, just about everybody else would agree that p points to x.
>
>I am guessing that for example you, too, agree with that.

I do agree that p points to x. I also do not even need to ask Noah or anybody
else competent if they think p points to x.

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.

Similarly, you have in fact chosen only to debate his wording rather than any of
my points in any of my responses.  May I ask why?

>
>Be that as it may (about your agreement or not), Noah's view, where p cannot 
>point to anything, is not in line with the general consensus about the 
>terminology here. And so it is quite irrelevant as an argument about pointers 
>that point to arrays, or not. Invalid is invalid, however sweet it may sound.

While it is true that if his statement as-is were held to the standard of being
an immutable law, then his case becomes invalid when dereferencing is not
possible, however, It is not so irrelevant in that his response and my responses
were in fact to an argument about pointers that point to arrays in a discussion
thread entitled, "On generally accepted terminology for pointers and arrays"

>
>[snipped irrelevant argumentantion]
>
>
>Cheers & hth.,
>
>- Alf

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.

Now you could certainly come back and say that this is irrelevant, or silly
"lawyeresque verbiage",  or just not respond at all, but  I do not need to tell
you what this could be perceived to mean if you choose simply not to answer.

In any case, I hope we can at the very least agree to remain respectful of one
another in the climate of both agreement as well as disagreement. 

Charles

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

#3524

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

-- 
http://crazycpp.wordpress.com

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

#3535

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. It is true but no
one will say such silly nonsense.

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

#3538

On Apr 13, 5:49 am, Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> 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. It is true but no
> one will say such silly nonsense.

Depends on whether it's pedantic nit-picking conversation or getting
some real work done. The consensus at my work place in our team would
be that a pointer is just abstraction of memory address with some type
sugar thrown on top. Most of us come from 6508/68k/z80 (Generation-X
dudes mostly, obviously).

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

#3541

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:49:03 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> 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. It is true but no
>one will say such silly nonsense.

You are of course correct about the conversational language part, Öö Tiib.
And you are of course correct when you acknowledge that, it is true that the
code that hi points to is the first byte in the array.

But to say that something is true and then say that no one will say it.  I do
not need to tell you that this statement in itself is moderately contradictory.

I do not mean to hinge my point on a simple statement like that, though.

My firest point is that when the discussion is elevated far beyond casual
conversation, and technical correctness is warranted, for example, for the case
of an educator explaining to his or her students the details of what that
expression actually means, then no longer is it silly to be technically precise,
but rather it is the educator's ethical responsibility to be technically
correct.

This is what  Alf and Paul seem to refuse to acknowledge.

Yes, there is a time when casual discussion should allow loose terminology.
Paul, for example, has taken loose terminology and has built wildly-false cases
on it.  His cases are not the time for casual or loose.

My second and final point is that lose terminology has no place or correct
foundation in a technically precise discussion, especially, when specificity
with regards to well-defined meaning is the topic of debate.  

Can we at least agree on that, Öö Tiib?

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

#3575

On Apr 13, 11:14 am, cg_chas <cg_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:49:03 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> wrote:
>
> >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. It is true but no
> >one will say such silly nonsense.
>
> You are of course correct about the conversational language part, Öö Tiib.
> And you are of course correct when you acknowledge that, it is true that the
> code that hi points to is the first byte in the array.
>
> But to say that something is true and then say that no one will say it.  I do
> not need to tell you that this statement in itself is moderately contradictory.

Not sure that i see the contradiction. Precise truth about exact
details is very rarely said out by specialists of any field when they
talk with each other about problems of their work. Usually they have
formed a slang that simplifies and makes things short-to-say despite
it is wrong if to take it precisely word-by-word.

However, i agree that when someone discusses the very precise nature
of something then there they should not use loose terms unless they
especially want to annoy the others.

[...]

> This is what  Alf and Paul seem to refuse to acknowledge.

Alf and Paul ... difficult for me to find something common about them
two. I think that it was Joshua Maurice who first pointed out (weeks
ago) that people go bit too far when disagreeing with Paul about that
specific aspect of his "array is pointer" theory. Paul certainly loves
to argue endlessly so he will be available for next strange thing if
to let that one to rest.

> My second and final point is that lose terminology has no place or correct
> foundation in a technically precise discussion, especially, when specificity
> with regards to well-defined meaning is the topic of debate.
>
> Can we at least agree on that, Öö Tiib?

Oh ... certainly. Such behavior is common about most deep specialists.
For example scientists. They can use their slang when they talk in
laboratory extremely loosely. However when they post their findings in
some magazine (for other scientists to nit-pick) then they are
absurdly precise and accurate.

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

#3545

"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee> 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.


>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.

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

#3547

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:52:48 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee> 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.
>
>
>>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 the first element that it does not point
to the array.  It is because that there is NO well-defined C++ definition that
asserts your case that it does "technically" point to an array

Here is the difference and why it matters.

It is ok to "say" most anything in casual conversation if what is said is not
misleading when all parties understand and agree on the meaning.  Furthermore,
any concepts built off the statement are sound if the technical nature of what
is casually being discussed is not the foundation for that concept.

While it is okay to say it causally, technically is another story.  Can you not
see the difference? Looseness and ambiguity should not be the foundation for
more complex concepts.  That is best left to well-defined technically correct
terminology.  This is why the Standard exists.

Technically, hi does not point to an array because this is C++ and there is no
well-defined C++ definition that asserts the case that it does, but there is,
however, numerous well-defined cases that assert that the pointer explicitly
points to the first element of an array. 

Do us all a favor, Paul. Look up what a well-definition is before responding.

That means, dont bother posting another loose-knit, out of context glossary
definition without its supporting examples and don't bother pasting the citation
from 8.3.4 paragraph 7 that refers explicitly to multi-dimensional arrays
either.  Neither are applicable anyway.

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

#3552

"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:m9paq6pr2cqlqhjaqggqs1l93i8vsi3fs9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:52:48 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee> 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.
>>
>>
>>>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.

Until you can accept the C++ language, as defined in the standards, please 
keep your stupid, annoying posts out of my discussions.

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

#3557

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:31:00 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:m9paq6pr2cqlqhjaqggqs1l93i8vsi3fs9@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:52:48 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.

As far as you thinking that somehow this is YOUR discussion, you might want to
adjust your newsreader:
The chain of responses for this thread are:
Alf
 Me
  Alf
   Me
    Noah
     Öö Tiib
      You
       Me
        You 
         Me

It is Alf's discussion and everybody else's that chooses to reply. If you were
not always so blatantly disrespectful to everybody that disagrees with you, I
would consider your request, but aside from your disregard for the importance of
social skills, technical accuracy, proper use of the Standard, and you're being
"Fractally Wrong," its is you that responds to my posts despite your having said
three+ times that you were going to delete them and not read them.  You sir, are
a complete mess and without good character.

You call everybody that does not agree with you an idiot. I call you
disrespectful, lacking social skills, irrational, and without logical thought
process.

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

#3561

"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.
It fully details the behaviour of pointers to arrays in the C++ language.

If you go away and read that instead of posting your bullshit incorrect 
opinions then you'd do everyone a big favour.
 . 

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

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

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

csiph-web