Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #2801 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-03-29 10:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-03-31 23:08 +0000 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 196 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-29 10:27 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-29 23:32 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 01:53 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 03:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 09:52 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 11:44 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 19:44 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 20:18 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-30 04:30 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 10:33 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 11:39 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 15:38 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 16:14 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:06 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:15 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:22 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:38 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 00:42 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 00:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 02:22 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 23:44 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 10:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-31 06:13 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 04:00 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:14 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 07:01 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 15:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 08:10 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 18:20 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 01:14 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-01 11:53 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 05:11 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-01 15:32 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 11:24 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-02 01:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-02 23:32 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-03 13:21 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 02:47 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-04 13:33 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-04 11:06 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-04 20:17 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-05 05:00 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-05 15:59 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 03:08 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 16:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-04-06 15:36 +0000
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 10:23 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 18:53 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 19:01 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 19:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 19:30 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 11:53 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-06 17:31 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-07 09:47 +1200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 15:14 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 15:15 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-06 23:13 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 23:35 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-07 14:20 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 12:56 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-07 21:47 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unread@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 06:54 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 08:45 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unread@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 18:01 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 18:09 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-08 20:25 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 19:45 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-08 21:14 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 21:08 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-04-08 22:52 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 00:52 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 09:06 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 07:53 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 18:12 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 18:22 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 19:51 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 19:54 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-08 21:10 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 23:44 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-11 12:40 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 04:53 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-11 14:05 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 06:20 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran Pusic <goranp@cse-semaphore.com> - 2011-04-11 07:33 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:42 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-11 17:56 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-11 13:16 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-12 08:09 +1200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 00:19 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 04:04 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 13:49 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 13:41 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 06:48 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-12 17:20 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 23:43 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-13 11:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:13 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-13 07:19 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 08:31 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:30 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 13:50 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 07:28 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 16:26 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 18:02 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 19:08 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 19:45 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 20:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 21:10 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 23:04 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 23:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 23:31 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-14 23:33 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 01:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 13:31 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:34 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:49 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:58 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 16:43 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 17:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 18:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 19:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 19:43 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 19:55 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 22:19 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 22:27 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 22:53 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> - 2011-04-14 15:28 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 01:11 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 01:35 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 12:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 05:06 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 13:19 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 06:37 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 06:54 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 16:45 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 05:56 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 14:30 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-15 10:44 +1200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 00:14 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 01:22 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 12:35 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 05:05 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 13:26 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 06:35 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-15 16:48 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 08:50 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-17 18:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-19 01:16 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-19 11:42 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-19 05:02 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-20 16:29 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 05:09 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-21 18:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 23:23 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-22 09:34 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 05:36 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-04-01 12:52 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-04-01 05:46 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 07:21 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 13:04 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:16 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:26 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:37 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:44 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-30 16:04 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 14:04 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherciueh@gmx.net> - 2011-03-30 20:02 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 20:21 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:47 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 00:12 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 11:36 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 05:26 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 13:41 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 06:28 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 15:00 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 07:47 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 18:14 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 10:33 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-30 20:24 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 23:31 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 04:46 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 05:16 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 14:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 09:01 -0700
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 18:23 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-03-31 21:32 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 20:37 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> - 2011-03-31 16:13 -0400
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 21:28 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> - 2011-03-31 22:55 +0200
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 23:06 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-03-31 23:43 +0100
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-01 12:12 +1300
Re: delete[] p or delete[] *p drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson) - 2011-03-31 23:08 +0000
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-30 20:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MrLkp.2231$9z4.584@newsfe14.ams2> |
| In reply to | #2856 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c7844c1b-31da-46c7-b114-0d7be3ea7975@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... On Mar 30, 7:14 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1d20e918-d384-43db-8404-28c394ab523e@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 30, 4:00 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > What I dont understand is what exactly your argument is, you fail to > > communicate properly. > > You said something was UB but no expalanation, just because it appeared > > to > > be UB to you. > > Now you are blabbing on about some assert thing. WHat exactly has all > > this > > got to do with delete[] ? > > Your cast is on the new side invokes UB. By consequence, your examples > are buggy, and so is your call to operator[]. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Why? > Please explain why it is UB? Because you are casting from a pointer of one type to a pointer of an unrelated type (and that's what the compiler told you, too, when you tried without a cast, now did it?) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx No my code compiles fine, The types are not unrelated they are both int types. I can cast from int[] to int* implicitly because its a realated type.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-30 23:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3703cc4b-f1b8-405e-b999-05b26ac8563c@r13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2865 |
On Mar 30, 9:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Because you are casting from a pointer of one type to a pointer of an > unrelated type (and that's what the compiler told you, too, when you > tried without a cast, now did it?) > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > No my code compiles fine Irrelevant. There's gigabytes of source that compile fine, but does not work. > , The types are not unrelated they are both int > types. > I can cast from int[] to int* implicitly because its a realated type. You can, but that is irrelevant for what you're trying to do. Besides, cast is already implicit, so why would you!? The problem is elsewhere: when you do "new TYPE[size1][size2]", the type of result is "TYPE**", and that is __unrelated__ to "TYPE (*) [size2]". Ppeople already have quoted you relevant portions of the standard, and I even went through the hassle of showing you, in great detail, __why__ what you are trying to do can't work well. In the process of doing so, I offered you, effectively, a __proof__ that your cast is UB (this type of proof is commonly called "proof by contradiction", and I can rephrase my proof more formally if you wish). You should take note of this, I believe: by your own words: "I can cast from int[] to int* __implicitly__ (emphasis mine) because its a realated type". However, no implementation allowed you to assign result of new TYPE[size1][size2] to TYPE(*)[size2]. There is __no__ implicit conversion there (and with a good reason, too, see above). So you resorted to a cast. An UB one. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 04:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <116c937b-de2e-44a4-9cae-2e9bafdd64ef@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2893 |
On 31 Mrz., 08:31, Goran wrote: > [...] > The problem is elsewhere: when you do "new TYPE[size1][size2]", > the type of result is "TYPE**", No, it is not. The type of this new expression is TYPE(*)[size2] (assuming TYPE is not an array-type). On 31 Mrz., 11:52, Paul wrote: > [...] > The definition in the C++ standard says it points to the first element > OF AN ARRAY. therefore by definition it points to an array [...] Wow. Apparently, the discussion is still about the banana vs bunch of bananas thing. I still see no definition of the word "pointer" or the expression "points to X" in the C++ ISO standard that would justify your use of the words "therefore by definition" in this context. Consider the possibility that you are (perhaps unintentionally) augmenting the standard's text with your personal understanding of what "points to X" means exactly. Regardless of the interpretation of "points to X", an array is not a pointer. Since you evaded revisiting this claim of yours in favour of this stupid discussion about the semantics of "points to X", my conclusion is you are too proud to admit that you were wrong about the "an array is just a pointer" issue. SG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 05:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aca80f7d-6999-4dd4-b2b0-cc7b5f2a81c3@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2905 |
On Mar 31, 1:46 pm, SG <s.gesem...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 Mrz., 08:31, Goran wrote: > > > [...] > > The problem is elsewhere: when you do "new TYPE[size1][size2]", > > the type of result is "TYPE**", > > No, it is not. The type of this new expression is TYPE(*)[size2] > (assuming TYPE is not an array-type). Whoops, indeed. Heat of the discussion ;-) ... Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 14:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qk%kp.1365$KZ7.641@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #2905 |
"SG" <s.gesemann@gmail.com> wrote in message news:116c937b-de2e-44a4-9cae-2e9bafdd64ef@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 31 Mrz., 08:31, Goran wrote: >> [...] >> The problem is elsewhere: when you do "new TYPE[size1][size2]", >> the type of result is "TYPE**", > > No, it is not. The type of this new expression is TYPE(*)[size2] > (assuming TYPE is not an array-type). > > On 31 Mrz., 11:52, Paul wrote: >> [...] >> The definition in the C++ standard says it points to the first element >> OF AN ARRAY. therefore by definition it points to an array [...] > > Wow. Apparently, the discussion is still about the banana vs bunch of > bananas thing. I still see no definition of the word "pointer" or the > expression "points to X" in the C++ ISO standard that would justify > your use of the words "therefore by definition" in this context. > Consider the possibility that you are (perhaps unintentionally) > augmenting the standard's text with your personal understanding of > what "points to X" means exactly. > No I agree the majority of experts who also say a pointer of type T* can point to a T , or an array of T's. Its the people here who are saying that T* does not point to an array who are making an idiotic and nonsensical statement that goes against the common understanding. The burden of proof lies with them/YOU. > Regardless of the interpretation of "points to X", an array is not a > pointer. Since you evaded revisiting this claim of yours in favour of > this stupid discussion about the semantics of "points to X", my > conclusion is you are too proud to admit that you were wrong about the > "an array is just a pointer" issue. > This is absolute bollocks , I never said an array was the same as a pointer, I say that in some situations it is, for all intensive purposes, the same. Now you say you know more about my views than I do? Go to France you fin idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99e47923-2e97-4a52-9039-40d7e0c42039@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2913 |
On 31 Mrz., 15:28, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > This is absolute bollocks , I never said an array was the same as a pointer, I quoted you correctly. You said "an array is just a pointer". You used this as subject to one of the threads that spawned over 200 other posts. > I say that in some situations it is, for all intensive purposes, the same. An array is never a pointer. What you tried to say should have been worded like this: One can use an array expression in contexts where a pointer is required due to the array-to-pointer standard conversion. That's about it. You're just being overly broad and imprecise, as ever. If you want to avoid looking dumb, you should put a little more effort into precise wording. Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he meant. > Go to France you fin idiot. Oh, how could I forget the name calling. Yes, that's definitely indicating cleverness. SG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 18:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <WM2lp.1881$Ir.1874@newsfe13.ams2> |
| In reply to | #2925 |
"SG" <s.gesemann@gmail.com> wrote in message news:99e47923-2e97-4a52-9039-40d7e0c42039@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On 31 Mrz., 15:28, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> This is absolute bollocks , I never said an array was the same as a >> pointer, > > I quoted you correctly. You said "an array is just a pointer". You > used this as subject to one of the threads that spawned over 200 other > posts. > You do not define what I say , I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 21:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4d94d6d5$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #2925 |
Am 31.03.2011 18:01, schrieb SG: > Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker > who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here > says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he > meant. *facepalm* I kept wondering what was so intensive about the purposes... Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 20:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kcmdnQ5N0flgSgnQnZ2dnUVZ7vednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2944 |
On 31/03/2011 20:32, Peter Remmers wrote: > Am 31.03.2011 18:01, schrieb SG: >> Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker >> who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here >> says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he >> meant. > > *facepalm* > > I kept wondering what was so intensive about the purposes... lulz. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cg_chas <cg_chas@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 16:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k0o9p6pr4rk6rsjrv60hm2a0ljd5hklgnt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2944 |
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:32:30 +0200, Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote: >Am 31.03.2011 18:01, schrieb SG: >> Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker >> who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here >> says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he >> meant. > >*facepalm* > >I kept wondering what was so intensive about the purposes... > >Peter lol, priceless
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cu5lp.985$bT6.65@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #2944 |
"Peter Remmers" <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message news:4d94d6d5$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... > Am 31.03.2011 18:01, schrieb SG: >> Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker >> who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here >> says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he >> meant. > > *facepalm* > > I kept wondering what was so intensive about the purposes... > Well keep on wondering maybe one day you will understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4d94ea41$0$6975$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #2948 |
Am 31.03.2011 22:28, schrieb Paul: > > "Peter Remmers"<p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message > news:4d94d6d5$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... >> Am 31.03.2011 18:01, schrieb SG: >>> Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker >>> who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here >>> says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he >>> meant. >> >> *facepalm* >> >> I kept wondering what was so intensive about the purposes... >> > Well keep on wondering maybe one day you will understand. > I guess your repetitive misuse of that expression shows that you literally "don't know what you're talking about", i.e. what the words you fail to use actually mean. I bet you're one of those who don't get there/their/they're right. Your response only shows that you are unable to own up to your mistakes. Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 23:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hW6lp.1137$9h6.682@newsfe02.ams2> |
| In reply to | #2950 |
"Peter Remmers" <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message news:4d94ea41$0$6975$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... > Am 31.03.2011 22:28, schrieb Paul: >> >> "Peter Remmers"<p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in >> message >> news:4d94d6d5$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... >>> Am 31.03.2011 18:01, schrieb SG: >>>> Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker >>>> who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here >>>> says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he >>>> meant. >>> >>> *facepalm* >>> >>> I kept wondering what was so intensive about the purposes... >>> >> Well keep on wondering maybe one day you will understand. >> > > I guess your repetitive misuse of that expression shows that you literally > "don't know what you're talking about", i.e. what the words you fail to > use actually mean. > > I bet you're one of those who don't get there/their/they're right. > > Your response only shows that you are unable to own up to your mistakes. > It wasn't a mistake its a deliberate varaition, unlike your misunderstanding of C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 23:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <etadnXNVBZcRngjQnZ2dnUVZ8hqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2953 |
On 31/03/2011 23:06, Paul wrote: > > "Peter Remmers" <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in > message news:4d94ea41$0$6975$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... >> Am 31.03.2011 22:28, schrieb Paul: >>> >>> "Peter Remmers"<p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in >>> message >>> news:4d94d6d5$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... >>>> Am 31.03.2011 18:01, schrieb SG: >>>>> Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker >>>>> who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here >>>>> says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he >>>>> meant. >>>> >>>> *facepalm* >>>> >>>> I kept wondering what was so intensive about the purposes... >>>> >>> Well keep on wondering maybe one day you will understand. >>> >> >> I guess your repetitive misuse of that expression shows that you >> literally "don't know what you're talking about", i.e. what the words >> you fail to use actually mean. >> >> I bet you're one of those who don't get there/their/they're right. >> >> Your response only shows that you are unable to own up to your mistakes. >> > It wasn't a mistake its a deliberate varaition, unlike your > misunderstanding of C++. Admit to your mistakes you liar. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-01 12:12 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <8vkg36F86fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2955 |
On 04/ 1/11 11:43 AM, Leigh Johnston wrote: > On 31/03/2011 23:06, Paul wrote: >>> >> It wasn't a mistake its a deliberate varaition, unlike your >> misunderstanding of C++. > > Admit to your mistakes you liar. A friend just posted this link on another group: http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_77.php I though it apt here as well. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-31 23:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <in31hp$fcs$2@raid.furrfu.com> |
| In reply to | #2944 |
In article <4d94d6d5$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> writes:
>Am 31.03.2011 18:01, schrieb SG:
>> Also, it strikes me as odd that a presumably native English speaker
>> who claims to be smarter than everybody who disagrees with him in here
>> says "intensive purposes" when "intents and purposes" is what he
>> meant.
>
>*facepalm*
>
>I kept wondering what was so intensive about the purposes...
Intent sieve porpoises?
The very idea is full of holes.
--
Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but
the schedule slipped, they do that.
-- Casady
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web