Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #3566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-13 08:27 -0400 |
| Last post | 2011-04-18 14:38 +1200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 139 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 08:27 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:00 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:26 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-13 10:21 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 11:45 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 20:57 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-14 12:40 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 07:24 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 07:32 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:51 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 12:00 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-13 20:29 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 15:35 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 22:36 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 17:37 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-14 02:12 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 20:23 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:37 +1200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 17:41 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-13 17:01 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 20:25 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:52 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 18:19 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 00:30 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 19:21 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 03:11 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:12 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 06:39 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> - 2011-04-13 17:04 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:32 +1200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 00:45 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:54 +1200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-17 22:00 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-17 19:37 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 02:54 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 14:15 +1200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-17 22:26 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-18 10:57 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 08:31 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 15:00 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 12:19 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 17:49 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 14:18 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 20:56 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 16:20 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 22:09 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 17:22 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 22:36 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 17:43 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 23:47 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 20:59 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-19 11:29 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-19 06:43 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-19 12:24 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 05:52 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 14:28 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 09:36 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 15:29 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 11:00 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 16:15 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 07:15 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 14:03 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 09:22 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 15:10 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 19:28 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 18:31 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 18:44 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 20:04 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 21:42 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays TJorgenson <tjorgenson@infinera.com> - 2011-04-22 14:21 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 22:24 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 23:47 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 15:56 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 02:45 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 20:30 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 05:15 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 17:25 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 06:37 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 12:56 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 20:25 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-24 13:42 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays TJorgenson <tjorgenson@infinera.com> - 2011-04-22 18:15 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 03:29 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-19 01:06 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 21:06 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 21:27 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-19 11:23 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-19 06:41 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 01:37 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 05:33 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 13:57 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 09:25 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 17:18 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 14:07 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 22:42 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 17:44 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-21 00:56 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 08:12 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 19:34 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-04-20 16:08 -0700
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 18:41 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 14:37 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 09:33 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 19:09 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 14:36 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 22:53 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 17:49 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 00:52 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 07:21 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 14:24 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 20:00 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 20:09 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-18 16:08 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 11:08 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-19 01:20 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 21:18 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-19 11:15 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-19 05:40 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-20 19:36 +0200
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-20 16:07 -0400
OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-21 00:31 +0200
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 00:16 -0400
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 09:00 -0400
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 14:12 +0100
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 14:32 +0100
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 09:36 -0400
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 17:54 +0100
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 16:46 -0400
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 23:45 +0100
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-22 12:02 +0200
Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-21 00:56 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 02:40 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-17 22:31 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-17 22:47 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 16:54 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 17:00 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-18 17:17 +0100
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 12:26 -0400
Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-18 14:38 +1200
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 20:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8ofcq6pi89g0sb2gh90kopm6ptq621rf94@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3625 |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:01:28 -0700, Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> wrote: >On 4/13/2011 2:41 PM, cg_chas wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:37:13 +1200, Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 04/14/11 12:27 AM, cg_chas wrote: >>>> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even if, it >>>> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or casual >>>> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays. >>>> >>>> Examples such as: >>>> int a[42]; >>>> int* p2 = a; >>>> apparently create huge debates about how to describe the above expressions. >>>> >>>> Similar examples include expressions like: >>>> int* p1 = new int[42]; >>>> >>>> I gleen two cases representing the major divisions of opinion in this matter and >>>> I happen to not agree entirely with either. >>>> >>>> 1) Nobody is actually saying that the int pointers p1 and p2 do not point to the >>>> initial element of an array, but more than one has expressed that it is silly to >>>> put it that way. >>>> >>>> 2) More than one has said that it is "generally acceptable" to say that the >>>> above expressions are both int pointers that point to arrays. >>> >>> One point I don't think has been argued over: when is an array not an >>> array? >>> >>> If after int* p1 = new int[42]; p pints to an array, what does ++p point >>> to? Another array? If p is a pointer to an array, does incrementing p >>> change it to something else? >> I am guessing Alf would say a "sub-object" or "sub-array". >> In either case, as soon as we start incrementing the pointer or the topic of >> discussion is about "pointer to T" which incrementing implies, then I would >> assert that "p points to an array" was technically imprecise and that p points >> to an element of an array now and before incrementing. > >Hopefully not, because there's numerous problems with such a definition. > For example, passing a pointer that "points to" (as they're defining >it here) an array to "delete []" works...the same would NOT work with a >"sub-array". > >At this point I believe its better to continue holding true to the >concept of pointer as distinct to iterator. A pointer points at AN >object. An iterator is a refinement of pointer that also allows >iteration over a container (and in the subject of discussion that >container is an array). Thus both p1 and p2 are pointers to elements in >an array that are also iterators for that array. These terms are not >interchangeable, one refines the other. well put.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 23:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <io55ve$dac$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3597 |
* Ian Collins, on 13.04.2011 23:37: > > One point I don't think has been argued over: when is an array not an array? One can possibly say that an array of zero size is not an array. Such an array (or non-array?) can only be allocated dynamically. > If after int* p1 = new int[42]; p pints to an array, what does ++p point to? > Another array? If p is a pointer to an array, does incrementing p change it to > something else? You're confusing/conflating two levels of formality, so to speak. Another example of that: a small heap plus a little grain of sand is still small, and so on... If you want a reasonable way to think about it, then (new int[42])+1 points into an array, and it also points to the start of a sub-array. > The standard is unambiguous as to what p is: > > 5.3.4/1: > > "If it is an array, the new-expression returns a pointer > to the initial element of the array." That's quite a bit ambiguous, for what is the first element of the array when the array is of zero size? But it doesn't really matter. I only point that out so that you can see that discussing number of angels here, and so forth, is of no practical value whatsoever. Intelligence must be applied. And then, with some intelligence, nobody cares about them angels. ;-) > and what p2 above is: > > 4.2/1: > > "An lvalue or rvalue of type “array of N T” or “array of unknown bound of T” can > be converted to an rvalue of type “pointer to T.” The result is a pointer to the > first element of the array." > >> My thoughts are: >> >> In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is it really ever silly to say that an >> int* points to the initial element of an array of int when it is well-defined to >> do so? >> No. >> >> It is not silly because widely recognized C++ sources say it just that way. >> 1) The C++ Programming Language, Bjarne Stroustrup section 5.3 Pointers into >> Arrays >> 2) Accelerated C++, Andrew Koenig 10.1.3 Arrays (last paragraph, second >> sentence) >> 3) ISO/IEC 14882 5.3.4 New (paragraph 1, last two senctences) >> >> In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is what is claimed to be "generally >> acceptable" (the statement that an int* points to an array) ever truly >> technically correct? >> No. >> >> If the discussion is about "pointer to T" then it is both inaccurate and >> irresponsible to say that an int* points to an array. Only in the most casual >> and general sense is this statement acceptable and only when the discussion is >> not about "pointer to T". > > I agree. Oh, you shouldn't agree to such glib conclusions about nonsense, no matter how well formulated. It's what we in the old days called techno-babble. Not that it hurts very much to agree to any single such, but the cumulative effect of techno-babble may at some point be that meaningful communication becomes impossible (and I think that that effect has hindered the standardization process, but that's just my not even well-informed opinion). Cheers & hth., - Alf -- blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 18:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u07cq6p157th461m2vn85d1aeuva6qd450@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3609 |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:52:41 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote: >* Ian Collins, on 13.04.2011 23:37: >> >> One point I don't think has been argued over: when is an array not an array? > >One can possibly say that an array of zero size is not an array. > >Such an array (or non-array?) can only be allocated dynamically. > > >> If after int* p1 = new int[42]; p pints to an array, what does ++p point to? >> Another array? If p is a pointer to an array, does incrementing p change it to >> something else? > >You're confusing/conflating two levels of formality, so to speak. > >Another example of that: a small heap plus a little grain of sand is still >small, and so on... > >If you want a reasonable way to think about it, then (new int[42])+1 points into >an array, and it also points to the start of a sub-array. > > >> The standard is unambiguous as to what p is: >> >> 5.3.4/1: >> >> "If it is an array, the new-expression returns a pointer >> to the initial element of the array." > >That's quite a bit ambiguous, for what is the first element of the array when >the array is of zero size? > >But it doesn't really matter. > >I only point that out so that you can see that discussing number of angels here, >and so forth, is of no practical value whatsoever. Intelligence must be applied. >And then, with some intelligence, nobody cares about them angels. ;-) > > >> and what p2 above is: >> >> 4.2/1: >> >> "An lvalue or rvalue of type “array of N T” or “array of unknown bound of T” can >> be converted to an rvalue of type “pointer to T.” The result is a pointer to the >> first element of the array." >> >>> My thoughts are: >>> >>> In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is it really ever silly to say that an >>> int* points to the initial element of an array of int when it is well-defined to >>> do so? >>> No. >>> >>> It is not silly because widely recognized C++ sources say it just that way. >>> 1) The C++ Programming Language, Bjarne Stroustrup section 5.3 Pointers into >>> Arrays >>> 2) Accelerated C++, Andrew Koenig 10.1.3 Arrays (last paragraph, second >>> sentence) >>> 3) ISO/IEC 14882 5.3.4 New (paragraph 1, last two senctences) >>> >>> In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is what is claimed to be "generally >>> acceptable" (the statement that an int* points to an array) ever truly >>> technically correct? >>> No. >>> >>> If the discussion is about "pointer to T" then it is both inaccurate and >>> irresponsible to say that an int* points to an array. Only in the most casual >>> and general sense is this statement acceptable and only when the discussion is >>> not about "pointer to T". >> >> I agree. > >Oh, you shouldn't agree to such glib conclusions about nonsense, no matter how >well formulated. >It's what we in the old days called techno-babble. Well at least now we know how you really feel about technical correctness. Truth begets truth as they say. > >Not that it hurts very much to agree to any single such, but the cumulative >effect of techno-babble may at some point be that meaningful communication >becomes impossible (and I think that that effect has hindered the >standardization process, but that's just my not even well-informed opinion). ... and the cumulative effect of building concepts on imprecise terminology may easily lead to confusion, false assertions, and poor communication. C++ already gives you plenty of abstractions. pointers containers arrays etc.. Why do you feel the incessant need for more exactly? (such as your "special" definition for "points to an array") Nothing is gained by erroring on the side of "loose terminology" at the same time piling on undefined abstractions, especially when the loose terminology defies a well-definition. Yet plenty can be gained by properly categorizing abstraction with choosing to use them in a technically precise way. That is what makes C++ a great language. It is also the very nature of Accelerated C++ which subtley imparts that very philosophy. If you have not read Koenig, then it is never too late. Indeed we differ greatly in our views. Mine just happens to more closely mirror proper terminology. If that is techno-babble then so be it. > > >Cheers & hth., > >- Alf It was most enlightening, Charles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 00:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <io585p$7ga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3614 |
* cg_chas, on 14.04.2011 00:19: >>>> >>>> If the discussion is about "pointer to T" then it is both inaccurate and >>>> irresponsible to say that an int* points to an array. Only in the most casual >>>> and general sense is this statement acceptable and only when the discussion is >>>> not about "pointer to T". >>> >>> I agree. >> >> Oh, you shouldn't agree to such glib conclusions about nonsense, no matter how >> well formulated. >> It's what we in the old days called techno-babble. > Well at least now we know how you really feel about technical correctness. If you feel that you are several persons, then I suggest seeing a doctor. Otherwise, who are the "we" that you pretend to talk for? Regarding technical correctness, that you have some trouble understanding common expressions in C and C++ programming does not mean that those who do understand those expressions have a less clear understanding than you. On the contrary. IMHO it is far more probable that those who do not understand the common terminology, are those lacking in correct understanding. Cheers & hth., - Alf -- blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 19:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qkacq659kufo8n3jh384rfv7omb9qkdgie@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3618 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:30:15 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote: >* cg_chas, on 14.04.2011 00:19: >>>>> >>>>> If the discussion is about "pointer to T" then it is both inaccurate and >>>>> irresponsible to say that an int* points to an array. Only in the most casual >>>>> and general sense is this statement acceptable and only when the discussion is >>>>> not about "pointer to T". >>>> >>>> I agree. >>> >>> Oh, you shouldn't agree to such glib conclusions about nonsense, no matter how >>> well formulated. >>> It's what we in the old days called techno-babble. >> Well at least now we know how you really feel about technical correctness. > >If you feel that you are several persons, then I suggest seeing a doctor. > >Otherwise, who are the "we" that you pretend to talk for? Im sorry, did you think for even a moment that you and I were the only ones reading this thread and making judgments for themselves as to whether or not they agree or disagree with any of either of our points? Or was it the fact that an individual who is not you or I agreed with something I said that inspired you to resume a path of insults. Perhaps Leigh was correct and I misjudged you. Perhaps I end up in your killfile too, but will it be because I simply do not agree with you or because somebody else agreed with me after I applied common sense coupled with logic? > >Regarding technical correctness, that you have some trouble understanding common >expressions in C and C++ programming does not mean that those who do understand >those expressions have a less clear understanding than you. My understanding has been painfully expressed in detail to the point of excess. My post has been regarding my thoughts coupled with an observation of things people have said, not a perception on my part of what people think. The fact that you consider it to be techno-babble is poor judgment on your part given that you have repeatedly refused to answer the most simple and direct questions regarding statements that you have made. I stand by what I have said and have been willing to elaborate when challenged, while you purposefully cling to the most inane cases and exceptions that apparently in your mind some how makes the actual context of a discussion irrelevant. > >On the contrary. > >IMHO it is far more probable that those who do not understand the common >terminology, are those lacking in correct understanding. Again, you stress the importance of what you consider to be common terminology (that technically flies in the face of well-defined technical correctness), when discussing a language that has well-defined components in a C++ discussion group no less. And you do so instead of simply conceding the fact that there are numerous scenarios where being technically precise would lead to greater productivity than being irresponsible and technically imprecise. > > >Cheers & hth., > >- Alf Best Regards & hth., Charles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 03:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <io5hkl$mco$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3624 |
* cg_chas, on 14.04.2011 01:21: > > The fact that you consider it to be techno-babble is poor judgment on your part > given that you have repeatedly refused to answer the most simple and direct > questions regarding statements that you have made. I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of any such questions. > you purposefully cling to the most inane cases and exceptions that > apparently in your mind some how makes the actual context of a discussion > irrelevant. That's at best a misguided impression, expressed in the vaguest of terms. I have no idea what concrete things your are talking about. If any. > And you do so instead of simply conceding the fact that there are numerous > scenarios where being technically precise would lead to greater productivity > than being irresponsible and technically imprecise. I'm sorry to say this, but that's a lie. That means, you know that it's false but you try to make others believe it. Other readers may think about e.g. my writing the "correct" C++ tutorial referenced in FAQ item 29.21. It's now off-net, but when I wrote it it was in response to all the technically imprecise and incorrect information then on the net. I think that that's not the thing a person who is irresponsibly hooked on the technically imprecise, would do. Cheers & hth., - Alf -- blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 23:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dhlcq69s22t10tgho1kegaegnca46nj36l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3632 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:11:49 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
<alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>* cg_chas, on 14.04.2011 01:21:
>>
>> The fact that you consider it to be techno-babble is poor judgment on your part
>> given that you have repeatedly refused to answer the most simple and direct
>> questions regarding statements that you have made.
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of any such questions.
Then you simply respond to posts that you do not read. No doubt that this one
will be no exception.
>
>
>> you purposefully cling to the most inane cases and exceptions that
>> apparently in your mind some how makes the actual context of a discussion
>> irrelevant.
>
>That's at best a misguided impression, expressed in the vaguest of terms. I have
>no idea what concrete things your are talking about. If any.
Agreed, you have no idea, since the ability to do a search through you own
postings for the word "irrelevant" apparently is beyond you.
>
>
>> And you do so instead of simply conceding the fact that there are numerous
>> scenarios where being technically precise would lead to greater productivity
>> than being irresponsible and technically imprecise.
>
>I'm sorry to say this, but that's a lie.
No need to be sorry at all. After all, according to you, I need to see a doctor
too since apparently I was crazy to think that others are reading this
discussion.
By the way, it is interesting that you have separated my responses from their
associated context while at the same time one of the key issues that you
apparently fail to recognize is context. I guess according to you, this will be
a lie too.
>
>That means, you know that it's false but you try to make others believe it.
a false assertion predicated on a false statement.
>
>Other readers may think about e.g. my writing the "correct" C++ tutorial
>referenced in FAQ item 29.21. It's now off-net, but when I wrote it it was in
>response to all the technically imprecise and incorrect information then on the
>net. I think that that's not the thing a person who is irresponsibly hooked on
>the technically imprecise, would do.
Writing a tutorial, while admirable and certainly useful pales in comparison to
the texts that I have quoted that you have claimed to not have read.
Now since we both know that you have read at least parts of two of the three
that I have cited. Who really is the one spinning deceit in this discussion?
Don't worry, I do not expect you to answer honestly. If i did, I would be
paradoxically lost.
>
>
>Cheers & hth.,
>
>- Alf
Well, discussion with you certainly has degraded. Not just with me, but with
others who have expressed views that differ from yours and who have applied
sound logic in their discourse.
I don't need to tell you that tossing around insults as you have done pretty
much shoots your credibility. You must not be too concerned given your
prestigious stature as a critically acclaimed tutorial writer.
As my final message to you Alf, I will simply shed light on a fundamental flaw
in some of your logic which very much highlights what it is like being in a
discussion with you:
I am quoting you despite knowing that you may disacknowledge the quotation due
to it either being "irrelevant" or that it may simply not exist because you are
"unaware" of it.
Alf said,
"Happily, that means that as one narrows the context, one also narrows down the
possible meanings of "pointer". Narrowing it down to the pointers directly
supported by the C++ language, the RAW POINTERS of C++, there is almost no
ambiguity. In this very limited context the term is well-defined."
I establish in this quote your "awareness" of a well-definition for the RAW
POINTERS of C++. One with, "almost no ambiguity" and I establish in this quote
your "awareness" of context.
And here is your summary statement of wisdom:
Alf said,
" 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".
I ask this rhetorically because due to the degraded nature of the discussion:
How sensible is it really to use the fact that "pointers of C++ are
well-defined, with almost no ambiguity" as the supporting logic for a clearly
undefined definition that you have presented as your dynamic case (3) ?
In effect what you have said in a round about way is, "pointers are well-defined
and unambiguous in the C++ world" so this is why it is ok and generally
acceptable to say that "right now an int* points to an array"
You claimed above that I am false but make others try to believe something.
I claim that you are using a truth completely out of context to support your
case that has absolutely no truth when held up to an actual well-defined pointer
definition. That makes you the deceiver, not me.
Cheers & hth., & bye Alf.
Charles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 06:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <io5tpa$kb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3634 |
* cg_chas, on 14.04.2011 05:12: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:11:49 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" > <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote: [snip trolling] > > > Alf said, > " 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". > > I ask this rhetorically because due to the degraded nature of the discussion: > > How sensible is it really to use the fact that "pointers of C++ are > well-defined, with almost no ambiguity" as the supporting logic for a clearly > undefined definition that you have presented as your dynamic case (3) ? As far as I understand it you're asking, how sensible is the common terminology where a pointer is said to point to an array when it points to an array? Well, it works nicely in practice. I'm not sure what you mean by "supporting logic", but if you're wondering why I remarked on definedness of terms, that was because it illustrates that even among experts there are differences of opinion about basic terminology (as I stated), and if you're wondering why I narrowed things down to raw pointers, that was because it's easier to discuss things in a limited, clear context. > In effect what you have said in a round about way is, "pointers are well-defined > and unambiguous in the C++ world" so this is why it is ok and generally > acceptable to say that "right now an int* points to an array" No, I have not said that; your "this is why" is at best a misconception. It's OK to say, informally, that e.g. a 'char const*' points to a string (if it does), because any C++ programmer understands it. And it's the common way to talk about it. You never say "points to the first char of a string" except when you explain the concept of pointing or there is a possibility of pointing to, say, the second char. In short, one does not normally specify something that is the default, and that is taken for granted. > You claimed above that I am false but make others try to believe something. > > I claim that you are using a truth completely out of context to support your > case that has absolutely no truth when held up to an actual well-defined pointer > definition. That makes you the deceiver, not me. I can't make head or tail of statement, sorry. But in conclusion, you started nicely in this thread, but have degraded seriously. I do not much like person-fixation here. Of your long tirade only one paragraph (second quote upwards from here) was about any halfway concrete issue. The rest, which I chose to snip, was about me, focusing on person only. Cheers, - Alf -- blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noah Roberts <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4da63a07$0$14393$cc2e38e6@news.uslec.net> |
| In reply to | #3614 |
On 4/13/2011 3:19 PM, cg_chas wrote: > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:52:41 +0200, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" >> It's what we in the old days called techno-babble. > Well at least now we know how you really feel about technical correctness. > Truth begets truth as they say. My recollection of the term "techno-babble" is that it is/was most commonly used by people that resented the fact that they didn't understand the tech, similarly to how "elitist" is now a word used to describe the educated by dropouts. -- http://crazycpp.wordpress.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 10:32 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <90mmj2FeeiU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3609 |
On 04/14/11 09:52 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote: > * Ian Collins, on 13.04.2011 23:37: >> >> One point I don't think has been argued over: when is an array not an >> array? > > One can possibly say that an array of zero size is not an array. > > Such an array (or non-array?) can only be allocated dynamically. > > >> If after int* p1 = new int[42]; p pints to an array, what does ++p >> point to? >> Another array? If p is a pointer to an array, does incrementing p >> change it to >> something else? > > You're confusing/conflating two levels of formality, so to speak. I don't think so. > Another example of that: a small heap plus a little grain of sand is > still small, and so on... > > If you want a reasonable way to think about it, then (new int[42])+1 > points into an array, and it also points to the start of a sub-array. Alf, you are inventing new shovels to dig yourself out of a hole! >> The standard is unambiguous as to what p is: >> >> 5.3.4/1: >> >> "If it is an array, the new-expression returns a pointer >> to the initial element of the array." > > That's quite a bit ambiguous, for what is the first element of the array > when the array is of zero size? > > But it doesn't really matter. > > I only point that out so that you can see that discussing number of > angels here, and so forth, is of no practical value whatsoever. > Intelligence must be applied. And then, with some intelligence, nobody > cares about them angels. ;-) :) -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 00:45 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <io591v$hm3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3620 |
* Ian Collins, on 14.04.2011 00:32: > On 04/14/11 09:52 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote: >> * Ian Collins, on 13.04.2011 23:37: >>> >>> One point I don't think has been argued over: when is an array not an >>> array? >> >> One can possibly say that an array of zero size is not an array. >> >> Such an array (or non-array?) can only be allocated dynamically. >> >> >>> If after int* p1 = new int[42]; p pints to an array, what does ++p >>> point to? >>> Another array? If p is a pointer to an array, does incrementing p >>> change it to >>> something else? >> >> You're confusing/conflating two levels of formality, so to speak. > > I don't think so. Think again, then. You are. Conflating. The formal and the informal. >> Another example of that: a small heap plus a little grain of sand is >> still small, and so on... >> >> If you want a reasonable way to think about it, then (new int[42])+1 >> points into an array, and it also points to the start of a sub-array. > > Alf, you are inventing new shovels to dig yourself out of a hole! No, you were digging yourself into a hole. And you asked, how do I get out? I just gave you several means. Of course, if you think the ladder is too disgusting old-fashioned to handle, then that's your choice. But I think at least, after yelling for help, you could say "thanks!" or something, instead of bitching about your feelings about the ladder you got (bah, old-fashioned), and what person could give you that crappy old ladder. >>> The standard is unambiguous as to what p is: >>> >>> 5.3.4/1: >>> >>> "If it is an array, the new-expression returns a pointer >>> to the initial element of the array." >> >> That's quite a bit ambiguous, for what is the first element of the array >> when the array is of zero size? >> >> But it doesn't really matter. >> >> I only point that out so that you can see that discussing number of >> angels here, and so forth, is of no practical value whatsoever. >> Intelligence must be applied. And then, with some intelligence, nobody >> cares about them angels. ;-) > > :) Yes, I think this is the crux. That one should be able to assume some intelligence and reasonable interpretation, except in some very few contexts (e.g. very formal). Cheers & hth., - Alf -- blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 10:54 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <90mnshFeeiU12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3621 |
On 04/14/11 10:45 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote: > * Ian Collins, on 14.04.2011 00:32: >> On 04/14/11 09:52 AM, Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet wrote: >>> * Ian Collins, on 13.04.2011 23:37: >>>> >>>> One point I don't think has been argued over: when is an array not an >>>> array? >>> >>> One can possibly say that an array of zero size is not an array. >>> >>> Such an array (or non-array?) can only be allocated dynamically. >>> >>> >>>> If after int* p1 = new int[42]; p pints to an array, what does ++p >>>> point to? >>>> Another array? If p is a pointer to an array, does incrementing p >>>> change it to >>>> something else? >>> >>> You're confusing/conflating two levels of formality, so to speak. >> >> I don't think so. > > Think again, then. You are. Conflating. The formal and the informal. OK, fair point. >>> Another example of that: a small heap plus a little grain of sand is >>> still small, and so on... >>> >>> If you want a reasonable way to think about it, then (new int[42])+1 >>> points into an array, and it also points to the start of a sub-array. >> >> Alf, you are inventing new shovels to dig yourself out of a hole! > > No, you were digging yourself into a hole. Believe me, after recent dramatic events around here (home), I have plenty of experience of holes and digging! -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-17 22:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iyIqp.27791$KZ7.16@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3566 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com... > Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even > if, it > is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or > casual > but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays. > > Examples such as: > int a[42]; > int* p2 = a; a is an array. p2 is a pointer to the array. > apparently create huge debates about how to describe the above > expressions. > > Similar examples include expressions like: > int* p1 = new int[42]; p1 is a pointer to a dynamic array. > > I gleen two cases representing the major divisions of opinion in this > matter and > I happen to not agree entirely with either. > > 1) Nobody is actually saying that the int pointers p1 and p2 do not point > to the > initial element of an array, but more than one has expressed that it is > silly to > put it that way. They point-to both the initial elelment of the array and also the array. > > 2) More than one has said that it is "generally acceptable" to say that > the > above expressions are both int pointers that point to arrays. Its a technical fact that both pointers point to arrays. > > My thoughts are: > > In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is it really ever silly to say > that an > int* points to the initial element of an array of int when it is > well-defined to > do so? > No. > > It is not silly because widely recognized C++ sources say it just that > way. > 1) The C++ Programming Language, Bjarne Stroustrup section 5.3 Pointers > into > Arrays > 2) Accelerated C++, Andrew Koenig 10.1.3 Arrays (last paragraph, second > sentence) > 3) ISO/IEC 14882 5.3.4 New (paragraph 1, last two senctences) > > In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is what is claimed to be > "generally > acceptable" (the statement that an int* points to an array) ever truly > technically correct? > No. > > If the discussion is about "pointer to T" then it is both inaccurate and > irresponsible to say that an int* points to an array. Only in the most > casual > and general sense is this statement acceptable and only when the > discussion is > not about "pointer to T". I don't know what you are babbling on about , if a pointer points-to an array then it points-to an array. You are obviously trying to suggest it doesn't but it does. > > Does case #2 from above hold up under this pointer defintion? What pointer definition? YOU don't define pointers. > > From "The C++ Programming Language" > 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. > No. > > Is there any well-defined pointer definition that agrees with the > assertion that > an int* points to an array? > None that I am aware. > > I ask that if anybody knows of one to please feel free to add it to this > discussion. > > As my closing thought, I do not impose "lawyeresque verbiage" onto those > that > choose loose terminology in general discussions. You won't because you can't. You do not define the C++ language. > I do, however, make the very > important disctinction that there is a time to be "general" and a time to > be > "technically precise". For the case of a C++ discussion about "pointer to > T" > then the time is not to be general, but rather, and simply put, > technically > precise. > Yes and it is time to be precise and end your nonsensical ideas that a pointer to an array does not point-to an array. The following has been said by Bjarne Stroustrup and it is clearly stated in the C faq's. If you disagree with this then I think you are more likely to be incorrect than the source of this. "A char* can point to a single char or an array of chars." Clearly you disgree with this. Thats fine by me and I don't really care if you think its wrong but I am happy to accept it as correct as it agrees with my thoughts on pointers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-17 19:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <o7tmq69tdrldupq4cap724g7cskr96ojbv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3889 |
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:00:52 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com... >> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even >> if, it >> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or >> casual >> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays. >> >> Examples such as: >> int a[42]; >> int* p2 = a; >a is an array. >p2 is a pointer to the array. as others have said, you've failed to grasp the subtle yet significant difference between "is a pointer to" and "points to". There is no valid context, technical or otherwise, to make the statement that an int pointer "is a pointer to" an array. > >> apparently create huge debates about how to describe the above >> expressions. > >> >> Similar examples include expressions like: >> int* p1 = new int[42]; > >p1 is a pointer to a dynamic array. same comment, see above. Not to mention that the Standard explicitly contradicts you. 5.3.4/5 > >> >> I gleen two cases representing the major divisions of opinion in this >> matter and >> I happen to not agree entirely with either. >> >> 1) Nobody is actually saying that the int pointers p1 and p2 do not point >> to the >> initial element of an array, but more than one has expressed that it is >> silly to >> put it that way. >They point-to both the initial elelment of the array and also the array. > >> >> 2) More than one has said that it is "generally acceptable" to say that >> the >> above expressions are both int pointers that point to arrays. > >Its a technical fact that both pointers point to arrays. Technical facts presume some valid C++ context and has Standard definition to back them up. What is your reference to the Standard that proves such a thing? > >> >> My thoughts are: >> >> In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is it really ever silly to say >> that an >> int* points to the initial element of an array of int when it is >> well-defined to >> do so? >> No. >> >> It is not silly because widely recognized C++ sources say it just that >> way. >> 1) The C++ Programming Language, Bjarne Stroustrup section 5.3 Pointers >> into >> Arrays >> 2) Accelerated C++, Andrew Koenig 10.1.3 Arrays (last paragraph, second >> sentence) >> 3) ISO/IEC 14882 5.3.4 New (paragraph 1, last two senctences) >> >> In any C++ discussion about pointer to T, is what is claimed to be >> "generally >> acceptable" (the statement that an int* points to an array) ever truly >> technically correct? >> No. >> >> If the discussion is about "pointer to T" then it is both inaccurate and >> irresponsible to say that an int* points to an array. Only in the most >> casual >> and general sense is this statement acceptable and only when the >> discussion is >> not about "pointer to T". > >I don't know what you are babbling on about , if a pointer points-to an >array then it points-to an array. I believe you when you say that "you don't know". I realize you cannot see any of the subtle distinctions involving your inane perspectives. >You are obviously trying to suggest it doesn't but it does. You obviously make assumptions without knowing the facts. What I do suggest is that there is no valid context, technical or otherwise, to make the statement that an int pointer "is a pointer to" an array. > > >> >> Does case #2 from above hold up under this pointer defintion? > >What pointer definition? >YOU don't define pointers. and you do not read posts before you respond to them. You certainly have failed to comprehend some of the greater points which came from this discussion that came from both sides of the debate. Unfortunately your side is erroneous on all accounts, but that is no significance since you are one individual with a uniquely wrong perspective. see the very next line to which this statement refers. I do not need to define pointers, I merely provide a well-definition for them, > > >> >> From "The C++ Programming Language" >> 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. >> No. >> >> Is there any well-defined pointer definition that agrees with the >> assertion that >> an int* points to an array? >> None that I am aware. >> >> I ask that if anybody knows of one to please feel free to add it to this >> discussion. >> >> As my closing thought, I do not impose "lawyeresque verbiage" onto those >> that >> choose loose terminology in general discussions. >You won't because you can't. >You do not define the C++ language. I do not need to. It is already well-defined. > >> I do, however, make the very >> important disctinction that there is a time to be "general" and a time to >> be >> "technically precise". For the case of a C++ discussion about "pointer to >> T" >> then the time is not to be general, but rather, and simply put, >> technically >> precise. >> >Yes and it is time to be precise and end your nonsensical ideas that a >pointer to an array does not point-to an array. Pointers to arrays do point to arrays. Pointers to int do not. You have repeatedly failed to recognize this fact in all contexts of discussion that you have attempted to weigh in on. > >The following has been said by Bjarne Stroustrup and it is clearly stated in >the C faq's. If you disagree with this then I think you are more likely to >be incorrect than the source of this. >"A char* can point to a single char or an array of chars." and in that context he is not saying that a char* "is a pointer to" an array of characters. Once again you fail to make the distinction. Besides the glossary definition does not supercede his well-definition: 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. > >Clearly you disgree with this. Thats fine by me and I don't really care if >you think its wrong but I am happy to accept it as correct as it agrees with >my thoughts on pointers. I disagree with you and I am completely correct in doing so. Additionally, everybody that has weighed in on this discussion disagrees with you too. You are alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 02:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eRMqp.35796$rF.4119@newsfe12.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3891 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:o7tmq69tdrldupq4cap724g7cskr96ojbv@4ax.com... > On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:00:52 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com... >>> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even >>> if, it >>> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or >>> casual >>> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays. >>> >>> Examples such as: >>> int a[42]; >>> int* p2 = a; >>a is an array. >>p2 is a pointer to the array. > as others have said, you've failed to grasp the subtle yet significant > difference between "is a pointer to" and "points to". > If X is a pointer to Y, then X points to Y. If X points to Y, then X is a pointer to Y. There is no difference. If you are trying to define the term "is a pointer to" to mean "is a pointer to type" or "is a pointer-type": Then you are innacurate because you cannot clearly state exactly what you mean and you try to wangle the meaning of the simple english term "is a pointer to". <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 14:15 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <911l56FpdmU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3895 |
On 04/18/11 01:54 PM, Paul wrote: > > "cg_chas"<cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:o7tmq69tdrldupq4cap724g7cskr96ojbv@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:00:52 +0100, "Paul"<pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> >>> "cg_chas"<cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com... >>>> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even >>>> if, it >>>> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or >>>> casual >>>> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays. >>>> >>>> Examples such as: >>>> int a[42]; >>>> int* p2 = a; >>> a is an array. >>> p2 is a pointer to the array. >> as others have said, you've failed to grasp the subtle yet significant >> difference between "is a pointer to" and "points to". >> > If X is a pointer to Y, then X points to Y. > If X points to Y, then X is a pointer to Y. > There is no difference. int n[1]; void* p = n; What is p? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-17 22:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <na7nq6tvfun0jm9n79pnkpa22ekcivfor4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3895 |
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:54:16 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:o7tmq69tdrldupq4cap724g7cskr96ojbv@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:00:52 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> >>>"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com... >>>> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even >>>> if, it >>>> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or >>>> casual >>>> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays. >>>> >>>> Examples such as: >>>> int a[42]; >>>> int* p2 = a; >>>a is an array. >>>p2 is a pointer to the array. >> as others have said, you've failed to grasp the subtle yet significant >> difference between "is a pointer to" and "points to". >> >If X is a pointer to Y, then X points to Y. >If X points to Y, then X is a pointer to Y. >There is no difference. That depends on your definition of pointer, doesn't it? > >If you are trying to define the term "is a pointer to" to mean "is a pointer >to type" or "is a pointer-type": "is a pointer to" is not a term, it is an expression. You fail to understand what a term is as you've used "pointing to bananas" as an analogy to a C++ discussion. >Then you are innacurate because you cannot clearly state exactly what you >mean and you try to wangle the meaning of the simple english term "is a >pointer to". Again, back to pointing to bananas instead of adhering to a well-definition of a C++ pointer. Ironically, your statement is why you are confused. You blur the English meaning of pointer with the well-defined C++ meaning. A pointer is an English term. A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. "pointing to", in C++, is an abstraction and often times it is used loosely to express a pointer of a static type "points to" an object of a different type. Does that mean a pointer of a static type "is a pointer to" an object of a different type? Absolutely not, and that is exactly what you've been saying. You are still wrong as you fail to apply a consistent definition with any of your statements. Come back when you have something new or meaningful to say. You repeat your argument over and over to anybody that will respond, but what you cannot seem to do is apply any consistent or meaningful logic in any of your assertions. Simply put, you are boring because you are ineffective and redundant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 10:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4dabfd14$0$6888$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #3898 |
Am 18.04.2011 04:26, schrieb cg_chas: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:54:16 +0100, "Paul"<pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>"cg_chas"<cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:o7tmq69tdrldupq4cap724g7cskr96ojbv@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:00:52 +0100, "Paul"<pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"cg_chas"<cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com... >>>>> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even >>>>> if, it >>>>> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or >>>>> casual >>>>> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays. >>>>> >>>>> Examples such as: >>>>> int a[42]; >>>>> int* p2 = a; >>>>a is an array. >>>>p2 is a pointer to the array. >>> as others have said, you've failed to grasp the subtle yet significant >>> difference between "is a pointer to" and "points to". >>> >>If X is a pointer to Y, then X points to Y. >>If X points to Y, then X is a pointer to Y. >>There is no difference. > That depends on your definition of pointer, doesn't it? It sure does. It is an understandable view, though. Who decides what's the difference between "points to" and "is a pointer to"? They are only different if you give them different meanings; else they pretty much mean the same, concerning the english language. You could also say "is a pointer to Y" just means "is one of the pointers that point to Y". Hm, I guess the better differentiation would be whether Y is a type or an object. int a[42]; int* p2 = a; p2 is a pointer to int. <-- Y is a type p2 is a pointer to the array a. <-- Y is an object p2 points to int. <-- Y is a type p2 points to the array a. <-- Y is an object So you could say that all of these are ok. I agree, though, that it sounds better if you stick to only two of those: p2 is a pointer to int. p2 points to the array a. >>If you are trying to define the term "is a pointer to" to mean "is a pointer >>to type" or "is a pointer-type": > "is a pointer to" is not a term, it is an expression. You fail to understand > what a term is as you've used "pointing to bananas" as an analogy to a C++ > discussion. I don't see the connection between "failure to understand what a term is" and the bananas... >>Then you are innacurate because you cannot clearly state exactly what you >>mean and you try to wangle the meaning of the simple english term "is a >>pointer to". > Again, back to pointing to bananas instead of adhering to a well-definition of a > C++ pointer. Ironically, your statement is why you are confused. You blur the > English meaning of pointer with the well-defined C++ meaning. > > A pointer is an English term. > A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. If you want to be pedantic about language, then I have to disagree - these are not terms. If you just say "A pointer is" using an article and no quotes, you refer to the actual pointer, which is surely not a term. What you mean is: "pointer" is an English term. "pointer" is a well-defined C++ term. > "pointing to", in C++, is an abstraction and often times it is used loosely to > express a pointer of a static type "points to" an object of a different type. > > Does that mean a pointer of a static type "is a pointer to" an object of a > different type? Absolutely not, and that is exactly what you've been saying. You > are still wrong as you fail to apply a consistent definition with any of your > statements. > > Come back when you have something new or meaningful to say. You repeat your > argument over and over to anybody that will respond, but what you cannot seem to > do is apply any consistent or meaningful logic in any of your assertions. > > Simply put, you are boring because you are ineffective and redundant. Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 08:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1e9oq6tcuei1u355u9uo1jl826ujsvi3v8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3911 |
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:57:55 +0200, Peter Remmers
<p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Am 18.04.2011 04:26, schrieb cg_chas:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:54:16 +0100, "Paul"<pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"cg_chas"<cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o7tmq69tdrldupq4cap724g7cskr96ojbv@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:00:52 +0100, "Paul"<pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"cg_chas"<cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or even
>>>>>> if, it
>>>>>> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of loose or
>>>>>> casual
>>>>>> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Examples such as:
>>>>>> int a[42];
>>>>>> int* p2 = a;
>>>>>a is an array.
>>>>>p2 is a pointer to the array.
>>>> as others have said, you've failed to grasp the subtle yet significant
>>>> difference between "is a pointer to" and "points to".
>>>>
>>>If X is a pointer to Y, then X points to Y.
>>>If X points to Y, then X is a pointer to Y.
>>>There is no difference.
>> That depends on your definition of pointer, doesn't it?
>It sure does.
>
>It is an understandable view, though. Who decides what's the difference
>between "points to" and "is a pointer to"? They are only different if
>you give them different meanings; else they pretty much mean the same,
>concerning the english language.
>You could also say "is a pointer to Y" just means "is one of the
>pointers that point to Y".
.. and my point still is that for Paul not to be wrong, more than one definition
would need to be applied to his statements. The inconsistency itself implies at
best, inconsistent application of English and C++ definition in a technical C++
discussion, and at worst, somebody that does not know the difference.
I am of the mind that Paul does not know the difference. I base this on his
misquiting the Standard repeatedly as well as providing example that does not
resolve the ambiguity of the two cases.
>
>Hm, I guess the better differentiation would be whether Y is a type or
>an object.
>
>int a[42];
>int* p2 = a;
>
>p2 is a pointer to int. <-- Y is a type
>p2 is a pointer to the array a. <-- Y is an object
>p2 points to int. <-- Y is a type
>p2 points to the array a. <-- Y is an object
>
>So you could say that all of these are ok.
Then we will have to agree to disagree for three reasons.
1) Even if Y is an object, given the above, it is an object with a type. In a
well-definition of a C++ pointer, type matters and in the above cases it
technically matters.
2) Only in the English terminology context is the int* p2 actually a pointer
that points to an array. It is not a correct statement in a C++ context because
int pointers hold the address for ints, not arrays of int. The Standard is
abundantly clear on this point and so are more than one authoritative texts.
3) Regarding "p2 points to the array a" which is at best loosely accurate.
Despite something being generally acceptable to say, the technical accuracy of
such a statement is at best "technically imprecise".
>
>I agree, though, that it sounds better if you stick to only two of those:
>p2 is a pointer to int.
>p2 points to the array a.
Perhaps "sounding better" is what has been guiding many who have weighed in on
this discussion which of course is subjective. Particularly those that have
expressed that one way is a silly way to say it and another way is not. The
greater point is that only the first of those two is technically precise and the
second is a "generally acceptable" statement that is dependent on a casual
context for its accuracy.
>
>>>If you are trying to define the term "is a pointer to" to mean "is a pointer
>>>to type" or "is a pointer-type":
>> "is a pointer to" is not a term, it is an expression. You fail to understand
>> what a term is as you've used "pointing to bananas" as an analogy to a C++
>> discussion.
>I don't see the connection between "failure to understand what a term
>is" and the bananas...
I do not have a link to the original reference here, but this is not Paul's
first use of "pointing to banans" as his argument to define the term, "pointer".
The statement goes to show that he applies and English definition to a C++ term.
>
>
>>>Then you are innacurate because you cannot clearly state exactly what you
>>>mean and you try to wangle the meaning of the simple english term "is a
>>>pointer to".
>> Again, back to pointing to bananas instead of adhering to a well-definition of a
>> C++ pointer. Ironically, your statement is why you are confused. You blur the
>> English meaning of pointer with the well-defined C++ meaning.
>>
>> A pointer is an English term.
>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term.
>If you want to be pedantic about language, then I have to disagree -
>these are not terms.
Which language? If you want to be pedantic, then clearly to do so requires
resolving the ambiguity between the two sentences that each express "pointer" as
a term?
>If you just say "A pointer is" using an article and no quotes, you refer
>to the actual pointer, which is surely not a term.
>What you mean is:
>"pointer" is an English term.
>"pointer" is a well-defined C++ term.
I do not find the two ("a pointer" and "pointer") to be mutually exclusive. If
you want to be pedantic, the simple difference between "pointer" and "a pointer"
is one asserts singular terminology and the other implies it. (English)
>
>
[.]
>
>
>Peter
Admittedly, I am dubious that in your response where you are "being pedantic"
that you chose to "snip" my supporting statement for what a pointer actually is
(in C++), which is an abstraction for "a variable of type T* that can hold the
address of an object of type T", which, of course, when applied, much of your
argument falls apart.
Charles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <luXqp.37118$bT6.10113@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3921 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e9oq6tcuei1u355u9uo1jl826ujsvi3v8@4ax.com...
>>>>>>news:q53bq6h2eg80qaj58eov4ep2kb9kq65th2@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> Needless to say, there is significant dissension regarding when, or
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> if, it
>>>>>>> is ever preferrable to use well-defined terminology instead of
>>>>>>> loose or
>>>>>>> casual
>>>>>>> but generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Examples such as:
>>>>>>> int a[42];
>>>>>>> int* p2 = a;
>>>>>>a is an array.
>>>>>>p2 is a pointer to the array.
>>>>> as others have said, you've failed to grasp the subtle yet
>>>>> significant
>>>>> difference between "is a pointer to" and "points to".
>>>>>
>>>>If X is a pointer to Y, then X points to Y.
>>>>If X points to Y, then X is a pointer to Y.
>>>>There is no difference.
>>> That depends on your definition of pointer, doesn't it?
>>It sure does.
>>
>>It is an understandable view, though. Who decides what's the difference
>>between "points to" and "is a pointer to"? They are only different if
>>you give them different meanings; else they pretty much mean the same,
>>concerning the english language.
>>You could also say "is a pointer to Y" just means "is one of the
>>pointers that point to Y".
> .. and my point still is that for Paul not to be wrong, more than one
> definition
> would need to be applied to his statements. The inconsistency itself
> implies at
> best, inconsistent application of English and C++ definition in a
> technical C++
> discussion, and at worst, somebody that does not know the difference.
>
> I am of the mind that Paul does not know the difference. I base this on
> his
> misquiting the Standard repeatedly as well as providing example that does
> not
> resolve the ambiguity of the two cases.
>
>>
>>Hm, I guess the better differentiation would be whether Y is a type or
>>an object.
>>
>>int a[42];
>>int* p2 = a;
>>
>>p2 is a pointer to int. <-- Y is a type
>>p2 is a pointer to the array a. <-- Y is an object
>>p2 points to int. <-- Y is a type
>>p2 points to the array a. <-- Y is an object
>>
>>So you could say that all of these are ok.
> Then we will have to agree to disagree for three reasons.
>
> 1) Even if Y is an object, given the above, it is an object with a type.
> In a
> well-definition of a C++ pointer, type matters and in the above cases it
> technically matters.
>
> 2) Only in the English terminology context is the int* p2 actually a
> pointer
> that points to an array. It is not a correct statement in a C++ context
> because
> int pointers hold the address for ints, not arrays of int. The Standard is
> abundantly clear on this point and so are more than one authoritative
> texts.
>
> 3) Regarding "p2 points to the array a" which is at best loosely accurate.
How can it be loosely accurate?
It can't be both loose yet also accurate.
> Despite something being generally acceptable to say, the technical
> accuracy of
> such a statement is at best "technically imprecise".
>
Your english is technically imprecise.
>>
>>I agree, though, that it sounds better if you stick to only two of those:
>>p2 is a pointer to int.
>>p2 points to the array a.
> Perhaps "sounding better" is what has been guiding many who have weighed
> in on
> this discussion which of course is subjective. Particularly those that
> have
> expressed that one way is a silly way to say it and another way is not.
> The
> greater point is that only the first of those two is technically precise
> and the
> second is a "generally acceptable" statement that is dependent on a casual
> context for its accuracy.
>
>>
>>>>If you are trying to define the term "is a pointer to" to mean "is a
>>>>pointer
>>>>to type" or "is a pointer-type":
>>> "is a pointer to" is not a term, it is an expression. You fail to
>>> understand
>>> what a term is as you've used "pointing to bananas" as an analogy to a
>>> C++
>>> discussion.
>>I don't see the connection between "failure to understand what a term
>>is" and the bananas...
> I do not have a link to the original reference here, but this is not
> Paul's
> first use of "pointing to banans" as his argument to define the term,
> "pointer".
> The statement goes to show that he applies and English definition to a C++
> term.
>>
So where exactly is this term defined in the C++ standards?
In one of the ANSI C drafts I can find this defnition of a pointer type:
"Apointer type may be derived from a function type, an object type, or an
incomplete
type, called the referenced type. A pointer type describes an object whose
value
provides a reference to an entity of the referenced type. A pointer type
derived from
the referenced type T is sometimes called ''pointer to T''. The construction
of a
pointer type from a referenced type is called ''pointer type derivation''."
An array or chars , is an entity of chars.
The above quotation states "the pointer provides a reference to an entity of
the referenced type." which means by this definition a pointer of type char
can point to(reference) an array of chars.
The term "pointer to X", "points to X" or any other deviation of this means
it references X".
>>
>>>>Then you are innacurate because you cannot clearly state exactly what
>>>>you
>>>>mean and you try to wangle the meaning of the simple english term "is a
>>>>pointer to".
>>> Again, back to pointing to bananas instead of adhering to a
>>> well-definition of a
>>> C++ pointer. Ironically, your statement is why you are confused. You
>>> blur the
>>> English meaning of pointer with the well-defined C++ meaning.
>>>
>>> A pointer is an English term.
>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term.
>>If you want to be pedantic about language, then I have to disagree -
>>these are not terms.
> Which language? If you want to be pedantic, then clearly to do so requires
> resolving the ambiguity between the two sentences that each express
> "pointer" as
> a term?
>
>>If you just say "A pointer is" using an article and no quotes, you refer
>>to the actual pointer, which is surely not a term.
>>What you mean is:
>>"pointer" is an English term.
>>"pointer" is a well-defined C++ term.
Where is it defined? Please quote this definition of a pointer.
> I do not find the two ("a pointer" and "pointer") to be mutually
> exclusive. If
> you want to be pedantic, the simple difference between "pointer" and "a
> pointer"
> is one asserts singular terminology and the other implies it. (English)
>>
>>
> [.]
>>
>>
>>Peter
>
> Admittedly, I am dubious that in your response where you are "being
> pedantic"
> that you chose to "snip" my supporting statement for what a pointer
> actually is
> (in C++), which is an abstraction for "a variable of type T* that can hold
> the
> address of an object of type T", which, of course, when applied, much of
> your
> argument falls apart.
>
Do you mean this?
"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."
Where is this text from , this does not look like the definition of a
pointer, all that say is that a pointer of type T can hold the address of an
object of type T.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web