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 | 20 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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-07 21:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oqpnp.1100$6W.897@newsfe21.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3296 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e8b5f588-4dbb-4fc2-a593-de353c67538b@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... On Apr 7, 3:20 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e250d164-6fb3-44d6-8511-ab93620de436@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 12:13 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:165e3c6f-18f4-4117-ba0c-d838eaef21e5@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 6, 7:53 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > A pointer type, pointer to T *is* also a pointer to a to an array > > > > > of > > > > > T. > > > > > I > > > > > don't need to prove it, its a fact of the language. > > > > > 1. > > > > > int i; > > > > int* pi = &i; > > > > > What array are we talking about here? In other words, if pi __is__ a > > > > pointer to an array of T, then why is the above possible and > > > > correct, > > > > even? Because C type system is broken or because your claim is > > > > broken? > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > The only thing broken is your brain. Obviously the above pointer > > > > doesn't > > > > point to an array but the same type of pointer below points o an > > > > array: > > > > int* p_to_array = new int[5]; > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > No, it points to the first element of array allocated by new int[5]. > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Bollocks you idiot , it points to both the first element *and* the > > > array. > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Consider this: > > > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; > > > So you say that p points to the array. That's aa[0]. If p points to > > aa[0], then ++p must point to aa[1]. That's what incrementing a > > pointer does. > > > Obviously, this is not true. ++p points to a[0][1]. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Yes p points to an array. Just because pointer arithmetic confuses you, > > doesn't mean p doesn't point to an array. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > OK, say that I am confused. You say that P points to X. I say, fine, > when I increment it, it must point to next X (this is a __very__ > simple truth of the language). And yet, incremented, P __does not__ > point to X. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Why would you be incrementing something if you didn't know what it pointed > to? > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a (obviously false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You don't know what this points to: int* p = new int[6]; With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unread@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 06:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ipupz6jt.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #3299 |
"Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > "Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:e8b5f588-4dbb-4fc2-a593-de353c67538b@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >> > Consider this: >> >> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >> ... > With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a > single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , > you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, the pointer p points to all of 1) aa[0][0] , 2) aa[0] and 3) aa ? /L -- Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html> 'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 08:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <F2znp.22193$rF.3463@newsfe12.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3304 |
"Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" <lrn.unread@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ipupz6jt.fsf@gmail.com... > "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >> "Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:e8b5f588-4dbb-4fc2-a593-de353c67538b@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > >>> > Consider this: >>> >>> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >>> > ... >> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >> single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , >> you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. > > Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, > the pointer p points to all of > 1) aa[0][0] , > 2) aa[0] and > 3) aa > ? > I don't care what it points to , its not my code. You tell me what do you think it points to, in your words..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unread@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 18:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bp0gg2ak.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #3307 |
"Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > "Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" <lrn.unread@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:ipupz6jt.fsf@gmail.com... >> "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >>> "Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:e8b5f588-4dbb-4fc2-a593-de353c67538b@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> > Consider this: >>>> >>>> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >>>> >> ... >>> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >>> single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , >>> you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >> >> Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, >> the pointer p points to all of >> 1) aa[0][0] , >> 2) aa[0] and >> 3) aa >> ? >> > I don't care what it points to , its not my code. You tell me what do > you think it points to, in your words.. I think it points to the int lvalue aa[0][0]. What do you think it points to? /L -- Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html> 'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 18:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tjHnp.25664$Hl6.24934@newsfe23.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3318 |
"Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" <lrn.unread@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bp0gg2ak.fsf@gmail.com... > "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > >> "Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" <lrn.unread@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ipupz6jt.fsf@gmail.com... >>> "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>> >>>> "Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:e8b5f588-4dbb-4fc2-a593-de353c67538b@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >>> >>>>> > Consider this: >>>>> >>>>> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >>>>> >>> ... >>>> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >>>> single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , >>>> you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >>> >>> Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, >>> the pointer p points to all of >>> 1) aa[0][0] , >>> 2) aa[0] and >>> 3) aa >>> ? >>> >> I don't care what it points to , its not my code. You tell me what do >> you think it points to, in your words.. > > I think it points to the int lvalue aa[0][0]. > What do you think it points to? > I think it poiints to a section of memory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 20:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4d9f532b$0$6877$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #3319 |
Am 08.04.2011 19:09, schrieb Paul: > > "Lasse Reichstein Nielsen"<lrn.unread@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:bp0gg2ak.fsf@gmail.com... >> "Paul"<pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> >>> "Lasse Reichstein Nielsen"<lrn.unread@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:ipupz6jt.fsf@gmail.com... >>>> "Paul"<pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>>> >>>>> "Goran"<goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:e8b5f588-4dbb-4fc2-a593-de353c67538b@27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>>>> > Consider this: >>>>>> >>>>>> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >>>>>> >>>> ... >>>>> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >>>>> single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , >>>>> you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >>>> >>>> Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, >>>> the pointer p points to all of >>>> 1) aa[0][0] , >>>> 2) aa[0] and >>>> 3) aa >>>> ? >>>> >>> I don't care what it points to You are so annoying. You just go on and emit your attitude crap when challenged. >>> its not my code. That's totally irrelevant. The question's purpose was to clarify your position. Even though you constantly promulgate your ultimate truths and fulminate at everyone who disputes them, you can't stand by your position when directly asked? You make me sick. >>> You tell me what do you think it points to, in your words.. You are unable to answer a simple question. You evade by deflecting the question. >> I think it points to the int lvalue aa[0][0]. >> What do you think it points to? >> > I think it poiints to a section of memory. You are unable to answer a simple question. You evade by using dummy answers. Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 19:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JJInp.28519$7u3.10793@newsfe04.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3323 |
"Peter Remmers" <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message news:4d9f532b$0$6877$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... > Am 08.04.2011 19:09, schrieb Paul: >>>>>>> > Consider this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >>>>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >>>>>> single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to >>>>>> , >>>>>> you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >>>>> >>>>> Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, >>>>> the pointer p points to all of >>>>> 1) aa[0][0] , >>>>> 2) aa[0] and >>>>> 3) aa >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>> I don't care what it points to > You are so annoying. You just go on and emit your attitude crap when > challenged. You're annoying for being wrong. > >>>> its not my code. > That's totally irrelevant. The question's purpose was to clarify your > position. Even though you constantly promulgate your ultimate truths and > fulminate at everyone who disputes them, you can't stand by your position > when directly asked? You make me sick. My position cannot be any clearer, you make me sick. > >>>> You tell me what do you think it points to, in your words.. > > You are unable to answer a simple question. > You evade by deflecting the question. And what question can't I answer? > >>> I think it points to the int lvalue aa[0][0]. >>> What do you think it points to? >>> >> I think it poiints to a section of memory. > > You are unable to answer a simple question. > You evade by using dummy answers. > No I answered it correctly. You obviously have a problem with all things that are correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 21:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4d9f5e95$0$6874$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #3324 |
Am 08.04.2011 20:45, schrieb Paul: > > "Peter Remmers"<p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message > news:4d9f532b$0$6877$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... >> Am 08.04.2011 19:09, schrieb Paul: >>>>>>>> > Consider this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >>>>>>> single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, >>>>>> the pointer p points to all of >>>>>> 1) aa[0][0] , >>>>>> 2) aa[0] and >>>>>> 3) aa >>>>>> ? >>>>>> >>>>> I don't care what it points to >> You are so annoying. You just go on and emit your attitude crap when >> challenged. > You're annoying for being wrong. Wrong about what? About you being annoying? I don't think so. >>>>> its not my code. >> That's totally irrelevant. The question's purpose was to clarify your >> position. Even though you constantly promulgate your ultimate truths and >> fulminate at everyone who disputes them, you can't stand by your position >> when directly asked? You make me sick. > > My position cannot be any clearer, you make me sick. Then why can't you answer a simple question? It was even a yes-or-no question. Even *you* should be able to type two-letter and three-letter words. >>>>> You tell me what do you think it points to, in your words.. >> >> You are unable to answer a simple question. >> You evade by deflecting the question. > And what question can't I answer? You are unable to answer a simple question. You evade by pretending you are unaware of any question. You are playing dumb just to be annoying, aren't you? >>>> I think it points to the int lvalue aa[0][0]. >>>> What do you think it points to? >>>> >>> I think it poiints to a section of memory. >> >> You are unable to answer a simple question. >> You evade by using dummy answers. >> > No I answered it correctly. You obviously have a problem with all things > that are correct. You deny that it is a dummy answer? Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 21:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <KXJnp.15304$oP6.8431@newsfe19.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3327 |
"Peter Remmers" <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message news:4d9f5e95$0$6874$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... >>>>>>>>> > Consider this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed >>>>>>>> to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, >>>>>>> the pointer p points to all of >>>>>>> 1) aa[0][0] , >>>>>>> 2) aa[0] and >>>>>>> 3) aa >>>>>>> ? >>>>>>> >>>>>> I don't care what it points to >>> You are so annoying. You just go on and emit your attitude crap when >>> challenged. >> You're annoying for being wrong. > Wrong about what? About you being annoying? I don't think so. You are just wrong about everything. You are just a wrong person in all honesty. > >>>>>> its not my code. >>> That's totally irrelevant. The question's purpose was to clarify your >>> position. Even though you constantly promulgate your ultimate truths >>> and >>> fulminate at everyone who disputes them, you can't stand by your >>> position >>> when directly asked? You make me sick. >> >> My position cannot be any clearer, you make me sick. > Then why can't you answer a simple question? It was even a yes-or-no > question. Even *you* should be able to type two-letter and three-letter > words. I did answer the question, please stop being wrong. > >>>>>> You tell me what do you think it points to, in your words.. >>> >>> You are unable to answer a simple question. >>> You evade by deflecting the question. >> And what question can't I answer? > You are unable to answer a simple question. > You evade by pretending you are unaware of any question. > > You are playing dumb just to be annoying, aren't you? > No you are the one who fits the adjective "dumb" here, not I. >>>>> I think it points to the int lvalue aa[0][0]. >>>>> What do you think it points to? >>>>> >>>> I think it poiints to a section of memory. >>> >>> You are unable to answer a simple question. >>> You evade by using dummy answers. >>> >> No I answered it correctly. You obviously have a problem with all things >> that are correct. > > You deny that it is a dummy answer? > The only dummy here is you, the answer I gave is 100% correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Remmers <p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 22:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4d9f7580$0$6775$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #3330 |
Am 08.04.2011 22:08, schrieb Paul: > > "Peter Remmers"<p.remmers@expires-2011-04-30.arcornews.de> wrote in message > news:4d9f5e95$0$6874$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... >>>>>>>>>> > Consider this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > int aa[2][2]; int* p=aa[0]; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> single int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>> you incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed >>>>>>>>> to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it correct that in your opinion, in the above example, >>>>>>>> the pointer p points to all of >>>>>>>> 1) aa[0][0] , >>>>>>>> 2) aa[0] and >>>>>>>> 3) aa >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't care what it points to >>>> You are so annoying. You just go on and emit your attitude crap when >>>> challenged. >>> You're annoying for being wrong. >> Wrong about what? About you being annoying? I don't think so. > You are just wrong about everything. You are just a wrong person in all > honesty. Hm yeah. The universal insult. That's.... childish. Try to be less childish. >>>>>>> its not my code. >>>> That's totally irrelevant. The question's purpose was to clarify your >>>> position. Even though you constantly promulgate your ultimate truths >>>> and >>>> fulminate at everyone who disputes them, you can't stand by your >>>> position >>>> when directly asked? You make me sick. >>> >>> My position cannot be any clearer, you make me sick. >> Then why can't you answer a simple question? It was even a yes-or-no >> question. Even *you* should be able to type two-letter and three-letter >> words. > I did answer the question, please stop being wrong. By using a dummy answer. That's... childish. Try to be less childish. >>>>>>> You tell me what do you think it points to, in your words.. >>>> >>>> You are unable to answer a simple question. >>>> You evade by deflecting the question. >>> And what question can't I answer? >> You are unable to answer a simple question. >> You evade by pretending you are unaware of any question. >> >> You are playing dumb just to be annoying, aren't you? >> > No you are the one who fits the adjective "dumb" here, not I. Hm yeah. Deflecting adjectives. That's... childish. Try to be less childish. >>>>>> I think it points to the int lvalue aa[0][0]. >>>>>> What do you think it points to? >>>>>> >>>>> I think it poiints to a section of memory. >>>> >>>> You are unable to answer a simple question. >>>> You evade by using dummy answers. >>>> >>> No I answered it correctly. You obviously have a problem with all things >>> that are correct. >> >> You deny that it is a dummy answer? >> > The only dummy here is you, the answer I gave is 100% correct. Hm yeah. Deflecting nouns. That's... childish. Try to be less childish. It was a decoy answer. Correct but too trivial to be a serious answer. Only trying to distract from your inability to really answer this simple question. Try to be less childish. Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 00:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbf29304-4801-4c35-b308-e81816907348@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3299 |
On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a (obviously
> false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> You don't know what this points to:
> int* p = new int[6];
>
> With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a single
> int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you
> incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to.
That's not the explanation, that's an assertion, and it's false.
__You__ incorrectly think that, when pointer points to the first
element of the array, it somehow points to the array as a whole. But
if you say that, pointer operations do not work as defined (as shown
by my dereferencing and incrementing examples). and yet they do. Hence
your claim is false.
Let's try the same explanation, this time from array standpoint...
typedef int (a6)[6];
a6 a[2] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 };
a6& ar0 = a[0];
a6& ar1 = a[1];
//a6* pa_wrong = a[0];
a6* pa = &a[0];
if (*pa != ar0) // XX
std::cout << "pointer dereferencing doesn't work";
if (*(++pa) != ar1) // YY
std::cout << "pointer incrementing doesn't work";
Here, pa __is__ a pointer to an array, and it __does__ point to an
array, array I typedef-ed as a6. When I dereference it, I get a
reference to a[0], as aptly shown by XX. When I increment it, I get a
reference to a[1], as aptly shown by YY.
If what you are saying was true, pa_wrong would compile, *pa would
give a reference to a (not a[0]), and ++pa would be UB (and it isn't,
it's legal, and it produces a reference to a[1]).
So... When you do have an array, you can easily have a pointer to that
array (pa). Your claim that a pointer to the first element of the same
array is __also__ a pointer to the array. Given that you can have
actual pointer to the array, your claim is both harmful (leads to
programming errors) and impractical.
Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 09:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kmznp.25029$Hl6.23113@newsfe23.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3309 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fbf29304-4801-4c35-b308-e81816907348@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a (obviously > false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > You don't know what this points to: > int* p = new int[6]; > > With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a single > int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you > incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. That's not the explanation, that's an assertion, and it's false. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You have made your opinion, that a pointer-type always defines what is pointed to, very clear. I haven't asserted anything , you have provided this evidence. If it's false then it's your opinion that's false, not mine xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 07:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f34739d3-d9a7-45f6-8c73-322f6d05833c@m7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3311 |
On Apr 8, 10:06 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:fbf29304-4801-4c35-b308-e81816907348@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a (obviously > > false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You don't know what this points to: > > int* p = new int[6]; > > > With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a single > > int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you > > incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. > > That's not the explanation, that's an assertion, and it's false. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > You have made your opinion, that a pointer-type always defines what is > pointed to, very clear. > I haven't asserted anything , you have provided this evidence. If it's false > then it's your opinion that's false, not mine Yes you have. All you have are assertions. Not even opinions, plain assertions. The "Martians exist, my dad saw them!" kind. Explain how it is possible that both pointer points to an array, and incrementing it makes it point to the next ___element in the array__. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <PmHnp.6482$bT6.1768@newsfe05.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3317 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f34739d3-d9a7-45f6-8c73-322f6d05833c@m7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... On Apr 8, 10:06 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:fbf29304-4801-4c35-b308-e81816907348@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a (obviously > > false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You don't know what this points to: > > int* p = new int[6]; > > > With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a > > single > > int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you > > incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. > > That's not the explanation, that's an assertion, and it's false. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > You have made your opinion, that a pointer-type always defines what is > pointed to, very clear. > I haven't asserted anything , you have provided this evidence. If it's > false > then it's your opinion that's false, not mine Yes you have. All you have are assertions. Not even opinions, plain assertions. The "Martians exist, my dad saw them!" kind. Explain how it is possible that both pointer points to an array, and incrementing it makes it point to the next ___element in the array__. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Explain how what is possible? I'm sorry but what you say is unclear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 18:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaOdnVGOK_Gl2QLQnZ2dnUVZ7oudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3320 |
On 08/04/2011 18:12, Paul wrote: > > "Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:f34739d3-d9a7-45f6-8c73-322f6d05833c@m7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 8, 10:06 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:fbf29304-4801-4c35-b308-e81816907348@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a (obviously >> > false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. >> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > You don't know what this points to: >> > int* p = new int[6]; >> >> > With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >> > single >> > int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you >> > incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >> >> That's not the explanation, that's an assertion, and it's false. >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> You have made your opinion, that a pointer-type always defines what is >> pointed to, very clear. >> I haven't asserted anything , you have provided this evidence. If it's >> false >> then it's your opinion that's false, not mine > > Yes you have. All you have are assertions. Not even opinions, plain > assertions. The "Martians exist, my dad saw them!" kind. > > Explain how it is possible that both pointer points to an array, and > incrementing it makes it point to the next ___element in the array__. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Explain how what is possible? > I'm sorry but what you say is unclear. He is quite clear. Explain how incrementing a pointer to an array will make the pointer point to the next element in the array? It can't as it is not a pointer to an array but a pointer to an array element; if it was a pointer to an array incrementing it would make it point to the next array not the next array element. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 19:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <DOInp.17797$0j7.14163@newsfe20.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3321 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:IaOdnVGOK_Gl2QLQnZ2dnUVZ7oudnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 08/04/2011 18:12, Paul wrote: >>> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> > I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a (obviously >>> > false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. >>> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> > You don't know what this points to: >>> > int* p = new int[6]; >>> >>> > With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >>> > single >>> > int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you >>> > incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >>> >>> That's not the explanation, that's an assertion, and it's false. >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> You have made your opinion, that a pointer-type always defines what is >>> pointed to, very clear. >>> I haven't asserted anything , you have provided this evidence. If it's >>> false >>> then it's your opinion that's false, not mine >> >> Yes you have. All you have are assertions. Not even opinions, plain >> assertions. The "Martians exist, my dad saw them!" kind. >> >> Explain how it is possible that both pointer points to an array, and >> incrementing it makes it point to the next ___element in the array__. >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Explain how what is possible? >> I'm sorry but what you say is unclear. > > He is quite clear. Explain how incrementing a pointer to an array will > make the pointer point to the next element in the array? It can't as it is > not a pointer to an array but a pointer to an array element; if it was a > pointer to an array incrementing it would make it point to the next array > not the next array element. > Sorry I dont understand your idiot mind either. You don't understand how to increment a pointer to an array?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 19:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Qr2dnShnTuJgxALQnZ2dnUVZ8oWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3325 |
On 08/04/2011 19:51, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:IaOdnVGOK_Gl2QLQnZ2dnUVZ7oudnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 08/04/2011 18:12, Paul wrote: >>>> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>> > I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a >>>> (obviously >>>> > false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. >>>> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> > You don't know what this points to: >>>> > int* p = new int[6]; >>>> >>>> > With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >>>> > single >>>> > int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you >>>> > incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >>>> >>>> That's not the explanation, that's an assertion, and it's false. >>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> You have made your opinion, that a pointer-type always defines what is >>>> pointed to, very clear. >>>> I haven't asserted anything , you have provided this evidence. If it's >>>> false >>>> then it's your opinion that's false, not mine >>> >>> Yes you have. All you have are assertions. Not even opinions, plain >>> assertions. The "Martians exist, my dad saw them!" kind. >>> >>> Explain how it is possible that both pointer points to an array, and >>> incrementing it makes it point to the next ___element in the array__. >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> Explain how what is possible? >>> I'm sorry but what you say is unclear. >> >> He is quite clear. Explain how incrementing a pointer to an array will >> make the pointer point to the next element in the array? It can't as >> it is not a pointer to an array but a pointer to an array element; if >> it was a pointer to an array incrementing it would make it point to >> the next array not the next array element. >> > Sorry I dont understand your idiot mind either. You don't understand how > to increment a pointer to an array? There is not much we can do if you cannot (or will not) understand the basics. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-08 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oZJnp.25152$5t2.6330@newsfe06.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3326 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:Qr2dnShnTuJgxALQnZ2dnUVZ8oWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 08/04/2011 19:51, Paul wrote: >>>>> > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> >>>>> > I do know what it points to. Saying that I am confused is a >>>>> (obviously >>>>> > false) premise. Kindly explain what is wrong in my logic. >>>>> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> > You don't know what this points to: >>>>> > int* p = new int[6]; >>>>> >>>>> > With the above p points to an array , you think it only points to a >>>>> > single >>>>> > int. You do not have any consideration for what is pointed to , you >>>>> > incorrectly think the pointer type defines what is pointed to. >>>>> >>>>> That's not the explanation, that's an assertion, and it's false. >>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> You have made your opinion, that a pointer-type always defines what is >>>>> pointed to, very clear. >>>>> I haven't asserted anything , you have provided this evidence. If it's >>>>> false >>>>> then it's your opinion that's false, not mine >>>> >>>> Yes you have. All you have are assertions. Not even opinions, plain >>>> assertions. The "Martians exist, my dad saw them!" kind. >>>> >>>> Explain how it is possible that both pointer points to an array, and >>>> incrementing it makes it point to the next ___element in the array__. >>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>> Explain how what is possible? >>>> I'm sorry but what you say is unclear. >>> >>> He is quite clear. Explain how incrementing a pointer to an array will >>> make the pointer point to the next element in the array? It can't as >>> it is not a pointer to an array but a pointer to an array element; if >>> it was a pointer to an array incrementing it would make it point to >>> the next array not the next array element. >>> >> Sorry I dont understand your idiot mind either. You don't understand how >> to increment a pointer to an array? > > There is not much we can do if you cannot (or will not) understand the > basics. > Correct I do not understand your basic idiot mind. However I do understand how to increment a pointer to an array, which obviously you find challenging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-10 23:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c325d827-a689-4f2b-9b11-cc4f2dfe1db2@d19g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3320 |
On Apr 8, 7:12 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Explain how it is possible that both pointer points to an array, and > incrementing it makes it point to the next ___element in the array__. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Explain how what is possible? > I'm sorry but what you say is unclear. No, it's clear enough, and you are lying when saying it's not. If you say that pointer of type "T*" (somehow, sometime, whatever) points to an __array__ of T, then simplest of pointer operations (indexing, incrementing) are broken. Since pointer operations clearly aren't broken, your claim is false. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <RMBop.51011$7u3.11086@newsfe04.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3398 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c325d827-a689-4f2b-9b11-cc4f2dfe1db2@d19g2000yql.googlegroups.com... On Apr 8, 7:12 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Explain how it is possible that both pointer points to an array, and > incrementing it makes it point to the next ___element in the array__. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Explain how what is possible? > I'm sorry but what you say is unclear. No, it's clear enough, and you are lying when saying it's not. If you say that pointer of type "T*" (somehow, sometime, whatever) points to an __array__ of T, then simplest of pointer operations (indexing, incrementing) are broken. Since pointer operations clearly aren't broken, your claim is false. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is broken about indexing and incrementing? I don't know what you are talking about, it works fine on my system, please explain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web