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 | 19 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 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 00:31 +0200 |
| Subject | OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <4daf5ebb$0$6977$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #4087 |
Am 20.04.2011 22:07, schrieb cg_chas: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:36:42 +0200, Peter Remmers > <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: > >>There is new evidence on this case... >> >>Am 19.04.2011 11:40, schrieb cg_chas: >>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:15:17 +0200, Peter Remmers >>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>> >>>>Am 19.04.2011 03:18, schrieb cg_chas: >>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:20:31 +0200, Peter Remmers >>>>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>>>> > [..] > > You would think that my choice not to make English a prolonged topic of debate > here would be a wise choice. Perhaps not. I did not think it would end up in such a big excursion. > First off, I did read your logic. > I do understand it. We'll see... > I question its practicality, nevertheless. > >> >>> Please note the difference in the use of quotes. >> >>Instead, you only focused on the redundancy of the indefinite article as >>the only difference, and didn't address the levels of reference at all. >>You failed to understand what I was talking about. >> >>Regarding this, I've been told to point you to >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction >> >> >>Peter > > I do acknowledge use-mention, but I am going to also draw attention to its > practicality and leave if for you to decide. > > For the record, I do not personally make the effort to adhere to it for the very > same reasons why English historically cannot decide on simple things like is > "ain't" really a word. Its practicality can be cumbersome. Again, though, I > acknowledge it to some meaningful degree of formality, but not as immutable > English law. > > I'll summarize what was said so far, then examine your logic and use-mention > from the perspective of practicality. > > ___ > > > Your statement was that mine made no sense because > pointer is - "makes sense" > a pointer is - "makes no sense" A big Nope. By saying "your statement was..." you basically give me feedback on how well you understood my point. And I can safely conclude from the above that you didn't. First, you did again ignore the quotes. The quotes (or italics, or any other optical means) serve to distinguish the level of reference. They are an important escape mechanism, switching modes between the two levels of indirection. So it's A pointer is ... (referring to the concept behind the word "pointer"), vs. "Pointer" is... (referring to the term "pointer" itself). Second, it's not the indefinite article (alone) that is the difference, and I'm not claiming that you only need to omit it to make sense. It is about the act of attaching the tag "term" to a pointer, rather than to the word "pointer" itself, being nonsense. But this is exactly what you do when you omit the escaping quotes and say "A pointer is a well-defined term." A pointer is not a term, it is a C++ object that holds the address of another object. It's the word "pointer" that is the well-defined term. Some examples: "Pointer" is a word. "Pointer" is also a term, because "word" and "term" are quite similar in meaning. "Pointer" is an English word. "Pointer" is a well-defined C++ term. "Pointer" cannot be dereferenced, because you cannot dereference a word. in contrast: A pointer is not a word. A pointer is not a term. A pointer is an object that has a pointer type. A pointer can hold the address of another object. A pointer can be dereferenced. Don't you see the difference? > The reason you gave was with regards to the meaning of : > > "1 - the word > 2 - the idea that the word represents" > > In effect you claim that my statements were in conflict of your rule whose logic > is quickly dissolved by a simple false statement such as: > > "A term is not a term." > Because, we know "a term is a term". That statement may be false but it misses my point. I don't see how that dissolves anything. Your attempt to use it is just an indicator that you did not understand my point... It's about the level of indirection on the left side of the equation (the "is"), and what can be attached to it. > No legalese in sight., yet just pedantic retort to pedantic retort. > > But your real issue is with my material supposition. So for the sake of > practicality, I'll entertain this now. Unknown term "material supposition"..... ....looking up in dictionary.....inconclusive data.... ....googling...... ....reading wikipedia..... ....done. Hm. Wow, I didn't know there was a complete theory about that. It just seemed natural to me to make such a distinction in levels. It seems, though, this theory has been obsoleted by "use-mention", basically reducing the formerly fine-grained levels of distinction to only two. Anyway, if you actually know about supposition theory, and know the distinction between material supposition and personal supposition, or between use and mention, then I really don't understand how you can so blatantly misunderstand me, because that's exactly what I've been trying to explain. It's just that I didn't know the technical terms... What I called level 1 is basically material supposition, and my level 2 is personal supposition. Or level 1 is mention, level 2 is use. Anyway, I guess all I have written before the googling has become moot... > Read these plain english statements and keep in mind that a term does not have > to be a single word. In fact terminology expressely allows for compound words or > contexts of a singular and plural nature. > > At the risk of it being called a lawyer again, we'll use examples from the very > wiki page you've cited: > > Properly with a real referent: "That is my cow" (assuming it exists). (personal > supposition) > That is my cow. > A cow that is mine is. (not incorrect, but odd looking) > > Properly with a generic referent: "Any cow gives milk." (simple supposition) > Any cow gives milk. > Cow gives milk. (ugly and not technically wrong either) > Cow, give milk. (why talk to cows) > > Properly but with a non-real referent: "Santa Claus's cow is very big." > Santa Claus's cow is very big. > "Cow's big", right Santa? > > Improperly by way of metaphor: "Your sister is a cow". (improper supposition) > Your sister is a cow. > Alf is not a god. (correct in both senses) > Alf is not God. (correct is three or more senses) > I am "pilot", he exclaimed. (very much accepted in modern english) With the quotes? To me, quotes unambiguously indicate mention/material supposition. > As a pure term: "Cow has only three letters". (material supposition) > Cow has only three letters. > A cow has three letters in its label. ( this would be the most applicable > example to our debate, and it still is not incorrect by any practical means) > A cow has three letters. (ambiguous at worst, but not technically incorrect to > say given the ambiguity of the word letter in the statement) > > Which brings us to a point. > Was your concern that you did not understand me? I think not. My concern was that you made a statement that only makes sense with material supposition, and yet you phrased it like a personal supposition by using an indefinite article and by not using quotes. > Were you attempting to confine me to proper material supposition? I guess that must be it, then. So you say that use/mention is all nonsense and you dispute its practicality, and therefore you intentionally make no distinction and so never use quotes to indicate the mode of supposition? > Perhaps, but > to no greater effect than to be pedantic towards an unambiguous statement. It may be unambiguous, but only because one of the two levels does not make sense. Unfortunately reading it left a sour taste in my mouth, because your phrasing rings the wrong bell in my head. > > Say this statement twice: > "In effective communcation, there is something to be said for use-mention, but > how we talk to each other is as equally important as how we talk to each other." Funny, I don't get the difference... Maybe it's like the "buffalo buffalo" thing that only natives can understand... > > Same and different, but not incorrect. > That's English for you. > > Charles Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 00:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <h14vq6l76bk88ji5igr8p24av5tqu0ofqo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4093 |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:31:19 +0200, Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >Am 20.04.2011 22:07, schrieb cg_chas: >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:36:42 +0200, Peter Remmers >> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >> >>>There is new evidence on this case... >>> >>>Am 19.04.2011 11:40, schrieb cg_chas: >>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:15:17 +0200, Peter Remmers >>>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Am 19.04.2011 03:18, schrieb cg_chas: >>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:20:31 +0200, Peter Remmers >>>>>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>>>>> [..] > >Some examples: > >"Pointer" is a word. >"Pointer" is also a term, because "word" and "term" are quite similar in >meaning. Are they? All words can be viewed as terms, but not every term has to be a word. A term does not have to be a single word. In fact terminology expressely allows for compound words or contexts of a singular and plural nature. >"Pointer" is an English word. >"Pointer" is a well-defined C++ term. >"Pointer" cannot be dereferenced, because you cannot dereference a word. Nothing wrong here. > >in contrast: > >A pointer is not a word. 100% agreed. >A pointer is not a term. You're certain? Here is where we part ways. (see below) >A pointer is an object that has a pointer type. >A pointer can hold the address of another object. >A pointer can be dereferenced. Nothing wrong with these either, but they are moot. > >Don't you see the difference? Absolutely. And despite you repeatedly saying that I do not understand the difference, I do. You are purely arguing material supposition, (which until 5 minutes ago, you didnt know what that meant) and are failing to consider the scope of what a term is or terminology is for that matter, despite my having said so in the previous post. In your second list, to say that "pointer" is a term and to imply that "a pointer" can not be defined to be a term is a false statement, despite the formalities of material supposition and despite the bell that rings in your head. "a pointer" can be defined just as "pointer" can be defined. Terms are not bound by plurality or the number of words. They encompass context. "the word" and the "idea a word represents" are not necessarily always mutually exclusive. I gave you a perfect basic plain english example that refutes that very notion. Here is another. "pointer" is a term. "an instance of a pointer" can also be a term. Why? because the definition for terminology expressely allows it. Given what I just said, let's once again look at my original statments so the context is not further stepped on. I said originally, >>> A pointer is an English term. >>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>> A pointer is an English term. not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the specific pointer" that is "a pointer of an English context". >>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the specific pointer" that is "a pointer of a C++ context". Similarly, it is not problematic to state: A pointer of an English context is a term. A pointer of a C++ context is well-defined term. Of course to speak like that would erase about a thousand years of progress. Don't YOU see the difference? For somebody such as yourself that seems to thrive on pedantry, I would like to think you will appreciate what I am pointing out here, but of course I could be wrong with that assumption. I am not debating with you what material supposition is. I know what it is. You seem to get the idea too since most of your examples show as much. You are just choosing to not see the impracticality of enforcing it though, as well as I think you are completely not seeing how terminology can affect it. Do you at least now get it? Now I've given you two reasons why material supposition is not immutable english law, practicality and terminology. It is formality designed to disambiguate, not supercede the very terminology it seeks to clarify. Thank you for your consideration. >> >> Charles > >Peter Charles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 09:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <fba0r69ln1jgoif8f8uptt88o0tn6negeg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4102 |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:16:14 -0400, cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote: [..] a horrible time for typos, nevertheless, i made three. >"pointer" is a term. >"an instance of a pointer" can also be a term. Why? because the definition for >terminology expressely allows it. > >Given what I just said, let's once again look at my original statments so the >context is not further stepped on. I said originally, > >>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. > >>>> A pointer is an English term. >not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the specific should be: "in" a generic sense. >pointer" that is "a pointer of an English context". > >>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the specific should be: "in" a generic sense. >pointer" that is "a pointer of a C++ context". > >Similarly, it is not problematic to state: >A pointer of an English context is a term. >A pointer of a C++ context is well-defined term. should be: is "a" well-defined term. my apologies if this led to any confusion. [..]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 14:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <a3Wrp.41496$bT6.28941@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4126 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fba0r69ln1jgoif8f8uptt88o0tn6negeg@4ax.com... > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:16:14 -0400, cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [..] > > a horrible time for typos, nevertheless, i made three. > >>"pointer" is a term. >>"an instance of a pointer" can also be a term. Why? because the >>definition for >>terminology expressely allows it. >> >>Given what I just said, let's once again look at my original statments so >>the >>context is not further stepped on. I said originally, >> >>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >> >>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>specific > should be: "in" a generic sense. >>pointer" that is "a pointer of an English context". >> >>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>specific > should be: "in" a generic sense. >>pointer" that is "a pointer of a C++ context". >> >>Similarly, it is not problematic to state: >>A pointer of an English context is a term. >>A pointer of a C++ context is well-defined term. > should be: is "a" well-defined term. > > my apologies if this led to any confusion. > > [..] > You do not seem to acknowledge the massive technical error you have made. Why do you care about your silly little typos yet you dont care about the bigger technical issue, that is the topic of the OP? Your technical understanding of C++ has been proven to be incorrect. And you are in fact incorrect to say that an int* cannot point to an array of ints.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 14:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <XYydnUd-RoaVry3QnZ2dnUVZ8hydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #4128 |
On 21/04/2011 14:12, Paul wrote: > > > Your technical understanding of C++ has been proven to be incorrect. And > you are in fact incorrect to say that an int* cannot point to an array > of ints. int* cannot point to an array of ints; it can point to an element of an array of ints, however. int(*)[N] can point to an array of N ints. HTH. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 09:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <evb0r6lm0euaocvbtjftgn0ta1l8n1u3bh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4128 |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:12:34 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:fba0r69ln1jgoif8f8uptt88o0tn6negeg@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:16:14 -0400, cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> a horrible time for typos, nevertheless, i made three. >> >>>"pointer" is a term. >>>"an instance of a pointer" can also be a term. Why? because the >>>definition for >>>terminology expressely allows it. >>> >>>Given what I just said, let's once again look at my original statments so >>>the >>>context is not further stepped on. I said originally, >>> >>>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>> >>>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>>specific >> should be: "in" a generic sense. >>>pointer" that is "a pointer of an English context". >>> >>>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>>specific >> should be: "in" a generic sense. >>>pointer" that is "a pointer of a C++ context". >>> >>>Similarly, it is not problematic to state: >>>A pointer of an English context is a term. >>>A pointer of a C++ context is well-defined term. >> should be: is "a" well-defined term. >> >> my apologies if this led to any confusion. >> >> [..] >> >You do not seem to acknowledge the massive technical error you have made. > >Why do you care about your silly little typos yet you dont care about the >bigger technical issue, that is the topic of the OP? > >Your technical understanding of C++ has been proven to be incorrect. And you >are in fact incorrect to say that an int* cannot point to an array of ints. I have expressed my opinion on that matter and you have expressed yours. You are without any form of satisfaction because people other than myself keep telling you how confused and foolish you are and you are incapable of understanding why. The difference between our POVs is that mine is defined by the C++ Standard. It is defined that pointers are objects expressed in terms of "pointer to T" where T is the type of object the pointer is declared to point to. If a pointer is declared as int*, then T is "int", not "int array". You do not seem to get that. So it is proven only in your mind. Should anybody happen to agree with you, I would gladly discuss it with them rationally, but so far it seems that nobody does. In fact, just the opposite, more people have told you that you are in some form wrong or confused in the past 30 days than I can recall in the past 8 years. Ironically, you are unique in that regard for being proven wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 17:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <EjZrp.30999$oP6.23987@newsfe19.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4131 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:evb0r6lm0euaocvbtjftgn0ta1l8n1u3bh@4ax.com... > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:12:34 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> a horrible time for typos, nevertheless, i made three. >>> >>>>"pointer" is a term. >>>>"an instance of a pointer" can also be a term. Why? because the >>>>definition for >>>>terminology expressely allows it. >>>> >>>>Given what I just said, let's once again look at my original statments >>>>so >>>>the >>>>context is not further stepped on. I said originally, >>>> >>>>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>>> >>>>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>>>specific >>> should be: "in" a generic sense. >>>>pointer" that is "a pointer of an English context". >>>> >>>>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>>>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>>>specific >>> should be: "in" a generic sense. >>>>pointer" that is "a pointer of a C++ context". >>>> >>>>Similarly, it is not problematic to state: >>>>A pointer of an English context is a term. >>>>A pointer of a C++ context is well-defined term. >>> should be: is "a" well-defined term. >>> >>> my apologies if this led to any confusion. >>> >>> [..] >>> >>You do not seem to acknowledge the massive technical error you have made. >> >>Why do you care about your silly little typos yet you dont care about the >>bigger technical issue, that is the topic of the OP? >> >>Your technical understanding of C++ has been proven to be incorrect. And >>you >>are in fact incorrect to say that an int* cannot point to an array of >>ints. > I have expressed my opinion on that matter and you have expressed yours. > You are without any form of satisfaction because people other than myself > keep > telling you how confused and foolish you are and you are incapable of > understanding why. > > The difference between our POVs is that mine is defined by the C++ > Standard. It > is defined that pointers are objects expressed in terms of "pointer to T" > where > T is the type of object the pointer is declared to point to. If a pointer > is > declared as int*, then T is "int", not "int array". You do not seem to > get > that. If the pointer points to the array then it points to the objects that make up the array A pointer to an array of objects, points to those objects. Not some other object that points to those objects. > > So it is proven only in your mind. Should anybody happen to agree with you, I > would gladly discuss it with them rationally, but so far it seems that > nobody > does. In fact, just the opposite, more people have told you that you are > in > some form wrong or confused in the past 30 days than I can recall in the > past 8 > years. > > Ironically, you are unique in that regard for being proven wrong. You are the one that's been proven wrong here not me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 16:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <1o51r65idr6lgoes4d4ub90p7utrcg03nm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4141 |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:54:42 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:evb0r6lm0euaocvbtjftgn0ta1l8n1u3bh@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:12:34 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> a horrible time for typos, nevertheless, i made three. >>>> >>>>>"pointer" is a term. >>>>>"an instance of a pointer" can also be a term. Why? because the >>>>>definition for >>>>>terminology expressely allows it. >>>>> >>>>>Given what I just said, let's once again look at my original statments >>>>>so >>>>>the >>>>>context is not further stepped on. I said originally, >>>>> >>>>>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>>>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>>>> >>>>>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>>>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>>>>specific >>>> should be: "in" a generic sense. >>>>>pointer" that is "a pointer of an English context". >>>>> >>>>>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>>>>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>>>>specific >>>> should be: "in" a generic sense. >>>>>pointer" that is "a pointer of a C++ context". >>>>> >>>>>Similarly, it is not problematic to state: >>>>>A pointer of an English context is a term. >>>>>A pointer of a C++ context is well-defined term. >>>> should be: is "a" well-defined term. >>>> >>>> my apologies if this led to any confusion. >>>> >>>> [..] >>>> >>>You do not seem to acknowledge the massive technical error you have made. >>> >>>Why do you care about your silly little typos yet you dont care about the >>>bigger technical issue, that is the topic of the OP? >>> >>>Your technical understanding of C++ has been proven to be incorrect. And >>>you >>>are in fact incorrect to say that an int* cannot point to an array of >>>ints. >> I have expressed my opinion on that matter and you have expressed yours. >> You are without any form of satisfaction because people other than myself >> keep >> telling you how confused and foolish you are and you are incapable of >> understanding why. >> >> The difference between our POVs is that mine is defined by the C++ >> Standard. It >> is defined that pointers are objects expressed in terms of "pointer to T" >> where >> T is the type of object the pointer is declared to point to. If a pointer >> is >> declared as int*, then T is "int", not "int array". You do not seem to >> get >> that. > >If the pointer points to the array then it points to the objects that make >up the array There is no if. The C++ Standard defines that int* does not point to an array. [..]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 23:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <Is2sp.31015$oP6.11014@newsfe19.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4168 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1o51r65idr6lgoes4d4ub90p7utrcg03nm@4ax.com... > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:54:42 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> a horrible time for typos, nevertheless, i made three. >>>>> >>>>>>"pointer" is a term. >>>>>>"an instance of a pointer" can also be a term. Why? because the >>>>>>definition for >>>>>>terminology expressely allows it. >>>>>> >>>>>>Given what I just said, let's once again look at my original statments >>>>>>so >>>>>>the >>>>>>context is not further stepped on. I said originally, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>>>>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>>>>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>>>>>specific >>>>> should be: "in" a generic sense. >>>>>>pointer" that is "a pointer of an English context". >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. >>>>>>not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the >>>>>>specific >>>>> should be: "in" a generic sense. >>>>>>pointer" that is "a pointer of a C++ context". >>>>>> >>>>>>Similarly, it is not problematic to state: >>>>>>A pointer of an English context is a term. >>>>>>A pointer of a C++ context is well-defined term. >>>>> should be: is "a" well-defined term. >>>>> >>>>> my apologies if this led to any confusion. >>>>> >>>>> [..] >>>>> >>>>You do not seem to acknowledge the massive technical error you have >>>>made. >>>> >>>>Why do you care about your silly little typos yet you dont care about >>>>the >>>>bigger technical issue, that is the topic of the OP? >>>> >>>>Your technical understanding of C++ has been proven to be incorrect. And >>>>you >>>>are in fact incorrect to say that an int* cannot point to an array of >>>>ints. >>> I have expressed my opinion on that matter and you have expressed yours. >>> You are without any form of satisfaction because people other than >>> myself >>> keep >>> telling you how confused and foolish you are and you are incapable of >>> understanding why. >>> >>> The difference between our POVs is that mine is defined by the C++ >>> Standard. It >>> is defined that pointers are objects expressed in terms of "pointer to >>> T" >>> where >>> T is the type of object the pointer is declared to point to. If a >>> pointer >>> is >>> declared as int*, then T is "int", not "int array". You do not seem to >>> get >>> that. >> >>If the pointer points to the array then it points to the objects that make >>up the array > There is no if. > > The C++ Standard defines that int* does not point to an array. > No it defines that an int* can point to an array of int objects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-22 12:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <4db1523e$0$7657$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #4102 |
Am 21.04.2011 06:16, schrieb cg_chas: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:31:19 +0200, Peter Remmers > <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: > >>Am 20.04.2011 22:07, schrieb cg_chas: >>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:36:42 +0200, Peter Remmers >>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>> >>>>There is new evidence on this case... >>>> >>>>Am 19.04.2011 11:40, schrieb cg_chas: >>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:15:17 +0200, Peter Remmers >>>>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Am 19.04.2011 03:18, schrieb cg_chas: >>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:20:31 +0200, Peter Remmers >>>>>>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>>>>>> > [..] >> >>Some examples: >> >>"Pointer" is a word. >>"Pointer" is also a term, because "word" and "term" are quite similar in >>meaning. > Are they? All words can be viewed as terms, but not every term has to be a word. > A term does not have to be a single word. In fact terminology expressely allows > for compound words or contexts of a singular and plural nature. I know. So? >>"Pointer" is an English word. >>"Pointer" is a well-defined C++ term. >>"Pointer" cannot be dereferenced, because you cannot dereference a word. > Nothing wrong here. > >> >>in contrast: >> >>A pointer is not a word. > 100% agreed. > >>A pointer is not a term. > You're certain? Here is where we part ways. (see below) Yes. It you say that, then you either don't see or don't acknowledge the difference. But wait, you already said you don't acknowledge it. If you aree to "is not a word" but not to "is not a term", then you attribute more difference between "word" and "term" than there is. You seem to equate "term" much more with "concept", and I think doing so is wrong. >>A pointer is an object that has a pointer type. >>A pointer can hold the address of another object. >>A pointer can be dereferenced. > Nothing wrong with these either, but they are moot. They are not moot, they are examples that show at which level a pointer is and thus that a pointer cannot be a term. >>Don't you see the difference? > Absolutely. And despite you repeatedly saying that I do not understand the > difference, I do. You are purely arguing material supposition, Yes I do. The fact that I needed some 3 tries to explain it to you, indicates that you were unable to realize, just by explanation in my own words instead of using technical terms, that effectively I kept talking about use-mention/supposition. At least you failed to give feedback in such a way that I could see you understood me. > (which until 5 minutes ago, you didnt know what that meant) That is irrelevant. I knew very well from the beginning what I was talking about. As I said, it seemed natural to me to make such a distinction. I just did not know there were already technical terms for that. But I guess it should not be a surprise. > and are failing to consider the > scope of what a term is or terminology is for that matter, despite my having > said so in the previous post. The scope of "term" is not that much more than that of "word". A term can be composed of more than one word, it can be a whole expression, and that's pretty much it. Anyway, "terminology" is just an umbrella word, collecting a set of terms. Both are just references to ideas, not the ideas themselves. > In your second list, to say that "pointer" is a term and to imply that "a > pointer" If you refuse to visually mark your mode of supposition by proper use of quotes, then you make it hard to argue with you because it is not clear what you are talking about. Again, it is not just the article that makes a difference, but by the above two quotes you make it look like you only focus on that and nothing else. It is no wonder I kept thinking you did not understand me. > can not be defined to be a term is a false statement, despite the > formalities of material supposition and despite the bell that rings in your > head. "a pointer" can be defined just as "pointer" can be defined. Terms are > not bound by plurality or the number of words. They encompass context. There is only one word with the name "pointer", so you can't use the indefinite article with it. There can be many instances of a pointer, so the article is applicable there. But that means that by using the indefinite article you are unambiguously moving to personal supposition and excluding material supposition. > "the word" and the "idea a word represents" are not necessarily always mutually > exclusive. I gave you a perfect basic plain english example that refutes that > very notion. Basically, what you claim is that a == *a That just is not true. Or at least you claim that it is irrelevant, or "impractical" to insist on the difference, which I very much must object to. > Here is another. > > "pointer" is a term. > "an instance of a pointer" can also be a term. Why? because the definition for > terminology expressely allows it. No, because you used quotes, so "an instance of a pointer" is an expression that does not equate to the idea it denotes. > Given what I just said, let's once again look at my original statments so the > context is not further stepped on. I said originally, > >>>> A pointer is an English term. >>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. > >>>> A pointer is an English term. > not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the specific > pointer" that is "a pointer of an English context". Again, your omission of quotes together with the use of the indefinite article unambiguously indicate personal supposion, and that does not match the rest of the sentence. >>>> A pointer is a well-defined C++ term. > not talking about pointers is a generic sense, I am talking about "the specific > pointer" that is "a pointer of a C++ context". Don't know what you mean with "*the* specific pointer of a C++ context". This is at best imprecise, at worst incomprehensible. What you want to do is give a term an attribute, namely "well-definedness": A term is a term. "pointer" is a term. "pointer" is a term - a well-defined one. "pointer" is a well-defined term. > Similarly, it is not problematic to state: > A pointer of an English context is a term. > A pointer of a C++ context is well-defined term. Again, the expression "a pointer of some context" is obscure. > Of course to speak like that would erase about a thousand years of progress. > > Don't YOU see the difference? <omission of childish response/> :) > For somebody such as yourself that seems to thrive on pedantry, I agree it is pedantic in that it is irrelevant to the discussion that led to it. I actually didn't mean to have this end up in such a big discussion of its own. But as we already arrived here, we might as well have a proper discussuon about it. > I would like to > think you will appreciate what I am pointing out here, but of course I could be > wrong with that assumption. I appreciate your patience and cooperation. > I am not debating with you what material supposition is. I know what it is. > You seem to get the idea too since most of your examples show as much. Then you haven't made your point clear enough... > You are > just choosing to not see the impracticality of enforcing it though, Very much so, yes. I think the two levels are so different that it is wrong to ignore it. > as well as I > think you are completely not seeing how terminology can affect it. I don't know what you mean. > Do you at least now get it? > > Now I've given you two reasons why material supposition is not immutable english > law, practicality and terminology. It is formality designed to disambiguate, > not supercede the very terminology it seeks to clarify. If that is your POV then we must agree to disagree. A discussion only makes sense as long as the POV of each side is not clear to the other, which has been the case up to now. As soon as each party is fully aware of all aspects, there is no reason to continue, as everything that can be said after that is only an act of trying to convince the other instead of explaining unclear aspects of the matter. I can't seem to convince you, and I don't want to. That is not the purpose of such a discussion. > Thank you for your consideration. Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 00:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Re: well-defined terminology versus generally accepted terminology regarding pointers and arrays |
| Message-ID | <7bdvq69gqsilqapr50rqdical4ub7346jd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #4093 |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:31:19 +0200, Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >Am 20.04.2011 22:07, schrieb cg_chas: >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:36:42 +0200, Peter Remmers >> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >> >>>There is new evidence on this case... >>> >>>Am 19.04.2011 11:40, schrieb cg_chas: >>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:15:17 +0200, Peter Remmers >>>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Am 19.04.2011 03:18, schrieb cg_chas: >>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:20:31 +0200, Peter Remmers >>>>>> <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >>>>>> [..] >> Say this statement twice: >> "In effective communcation, there is something to be said for use-mention, but >> how we talk to each other is as equally important as how we talk to each other." >Funny, I don't get the difference... >Maybe it's like the "buffalo buffalo" thing that only natives can >understand... I did mean to answer this in my previous post, but forgot to. "How we talk to each other is as equally important as how we talk to each other." The difference is obviously invisible syntactically , but in the context of our discussion or even with simple deduction, possible meanings can be gleaned. How we talk to each other (with regards to respect) is as equally important as how we talk to each other (with regards to correct grammar). The sentence serves two distinct purposes. One is to assert that English allows for expressions to be syntactically identical while having completely different meanings. Two is that the efficacy of communication relies on a balance of mutual understanding as well as some level of proficiency with the language (i.e. grammer), but the complete absense of either breaks down meaning. And no, it is not something that only natives can understand. It is just an unfortunate facet of English. The greater point goes to the impracticality of enforcing things like material supposition. Similarly it is as equally futile to enforce not using double-negatives, when there is already mutual understanding. > >> >> Same and different, but not incorrect. >> That's English for you. >> >> Charles > >Peter Charles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 02:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6EMqp.48801$9z4.15073@newsfe14.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3889 |
Additionally:
In C++ there are two ways of looking at an array:
a) Array of objects.
b) Array data type.
When we ask the question , does the pointer point to an array? We have to be
clear what we mean (a) or (b)?
I think (a) is the generally accepted meaning of an array when used in this
context. If we were meaning (b) then we would further qualify the question
by saying... does the pointer point to an array-type.
Many people seem confused and innacurate and they do not seem to understand
the difference between these two terms. My opinion about pointers to arrays
is completely based on the question being in the context of (a). I think
it's important to acknowledge the above two differences with pointers to
arrays.
For example with the following:
char arr[32] ={0}
char* p_arr = arr; /*This is a pointer to the array*/
char (*pp)[32] =&arr; /*This is a pointer to array-type*/
/**********************************/
Both pointers point to the same memory location. They are different types
and both point to an array in different ways.
p_arr is a direct array to pointer conversion , whereas pp is indirect.
/*********************************/
++p_arr; /*Which element does it point to now?*/
/*********************************/
In general the pointer is a pointer to an array. If you need to be more
specific you can specify exactly which element the pointer points to.
Now its seems obvious that many people on this forum think that p_arr does
not point to an array because its type is not an array-type. But this is
obviously a completely ignorant argument that does not take into
consideration the fact that an array is converted to a pointer to a (n-1)
dimensional array.
In the case of a 1dim array, it is converted to a pointer to the first
element. The first element of the array is an object within the array so the
pointer obviously also points to the array.
If you have a plate of beans you cannot point at one single bean without
also pointing at the beans.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-17 22:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sb8nq69hf5pa3rhfjpcgcd66dpvvdjfa94@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3896 |
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:40:15 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [..] >If you have a plate of beans you cannot point at one single bean without >also pointing at the beans. Once again, you blur English terminology with C++ terminology. Perhaps you feel that beans better asserts your case than bananas did? Regardless of how many times you change the type of fruit, your logic is redundant and misplaced. Thank you once again for the laugh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-17 22:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qb9nq69e57vjh638mel59t3lou42dk27oo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3899 |
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:31:33 -0400, cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:40:15 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >[..] >>If you have a plate of beans you cannot point at one single bean without >>also pointing at the beans. >Once again, you blur English terminology with C++ terminology. Perhaps you feel >that beans better asserts your case than bananas did? > >Regardless of how many times you change the type of fruit, your logic is >redundant and misplaced. > >Thank you once again for the laugh. But since you make the argument, it is very easy to refute. Given a 3d world, which is what a plate of beans exists in, and given the location of each bean on the plate, your assertion would have us believe that it is not possible to store the location of a single bean, which of course would be a false assertion. Try harder next time. Perhaps avocados will change the response you get from people. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 16:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <_8Zqp.30423$oP6.13320@newsfe19.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3899 |
"cg_chas" <cg_chas@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:sb8nq69hf5pa3rhfjpcgcd66dpvvdjfa94@4ax.com... > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:40:15 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > [..] >>If you have a plate of beans you cannot point at one single bean without >>also pointing at the beans. > Once again, you blur English terminology with C++ terminology. Perhaps > you feel > that beans better asserts your case than bananas did? > The C++ language is defined in English, not is Spanish, Japanese or Latin. In C++ a pointer can be said to point to: a) an entity b) a type If a pointer points to an entity that is an array of T's, it does not point to all T's simultaneously. A computer can only address memory in distinct chunk sizes. So with : char* p = new char[256]; If p(which addresses a char), is not a pointer to this array. What is a pointer to this array and what does it address? Or it is impossible to have a pointer to this array in your mind? You cannot have a special pointer that addresses the whole array simultaneously. Please explain simply and clearly, without any bullshit, why you think a char* cannot point to an array of chars. I doubt this is possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <CKidnRLaaeqz_THQnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3946 |
On 18/04/2011 16:54, Paul wrote: [...] > Please explain simply and clearly, without any bullshit, why you think a > char* cannot point to an array of chars. > I doubt this is possible. A char* can point to an element of an array of chars; this is almost so simple a concept that even a child could grasp it. The question therefore is whether pointing to an array element is the same as pointing to an array. As C++ provides for pointer-to-array types it makes sense to say that if the pointer is not a pointer-to-array type then it can't point to an array *if* we are being formal (technically accurate). /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 17:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <huZqp.37131$bT6.22338@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3947 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:CKidnRLaaeqz_THQnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@giganews.com... > On 18/04/2011 16:54, Paul wrote: > [...] > >> Please explain simply and clearly, without any bullshit, why you think a >> char* cannot point to an array of chars. >> I doubt this is possible. > > A char* can point to an element of an array of chars; this is almost so > simple a concept that even a child could grasp it. The question therefore > is whether pointing to an array element is the same as pointing to an > array. > As C++ provides for pointer-to-array types it makes sense to say that if > the pointer is not a pointer-to-array type then it can't point to an array > *if* we are being formal (technically accurate). > Ah so you disagree with Bjarne Stroustrup when he says: "char* - pointer to a char or an array of char. " You think perhaps BS is techincally innacurate,, he obviosly isn't as experienced as you, and he most probably doesn't know near as much about C++ as you do. So probably you are techincally accurate and BS is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 12:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7apoq6t2egqvjt5npgv5euipvei5hv4kki@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3946 |
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:54:29 +0100, "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [..] >Please explain simply and clearly, without any bullshit, why you think a >char* cannot point to an array of chars. >I doubt this is possible. The subjectivity of what is BS and not BS is a consideration from both our perspectives, I assure you. Regardles, I have simply and clearly explained just as you've asked in the post with the timestamp: NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:19:25 -0500 that resides in this very discussion thread. Whether ot not you accept it will be another story of course. Charles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 14:38 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <911mi1FpdmU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3896 |
On 04/18/11 01:40 PM, Paul wrote: > If you have a plate of beans you cannot point at one single bean without > also pointing at the beans. So you have no means of identifying an individual bean? Does that mean you eat with a ladle rather than a fork? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web