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 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 18:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <000qp.4261$9h6.3027@newsfe02.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3767 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:lpCdnd_ZI89S6jXQnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 15/04/2011 16:43, Paul wrote: >> >> "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:ItidnZKcsIaA0jXQnZ2dnUVZ7sWdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 15/04/2011 14:49, Paul wrote: >>>>>>>> What you have done is not a standard array-pointer conversion. You >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> created an extra level of indirection. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Correct I have created an extra level of indirection to create a >>>>>>> pointer to a 2D array; without that extra level of indirection I >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be creating a pointer to a 1D array via implicit array-to-pointer >>>>>>> conversion. >>>>>>> >>>>>> No you are talking about the pointer type but you use incorrect >>>>>> terminology. When we say X is a pointer to an array this doesn't not >>>>>> mean the same as x is a pointer-type pointer to an array. >>>>>> The term "is a pointer to" refers to the pointed-to object and is >>>>>> not a >>>>>> term that defines the pointer type for example: >>>>> >>>>> This must be a royal "we" as nobody else (nor the Standard) agrees >>>>> with you. >>>> >>>> Well the standard uses the term "is a pointer to" to refer to the >>>> pointed to object, for example the standard uses terms like: >>>> is a pointer to an incomplete object. >>>> >>>> It's obviously refering to the pointed to object, and not the >>>> pointer-type. >>> >>> You can repeat your nonsense as many times as you like but it will >>> remain as incorrect nonsense. It is obviously not referring to the >>> pointed to object as you cannot have an object of an incomplete type; >>> you can have an "incomplete object type" though which is the term the >>> Standard actually uses not "incomplete object". >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> void* p = (void*)new int[6]; >>>>>> >>>>>> p is a pointer to an array of 6 ints. p is not a pointer to void. >>>>> >>>>> No; p *is* a pointer to void. >>>>> >>>> Your terminology is incorrect, the pointer-type is void pointer but >>>> this >>>> does not mean it points to a void. >>> >>> My terminology is correct; p is a pointer to void. >>> >> No its not there is no such object as a void in C++. p does not point to >> a void. > > I never said there was a void object however "pointer to void" is a > correct term; from the Standard: > > 3.9.2/4 > "Objects of cv-qualified (3.9.3) or cv-unqualified type void* (pointer to > void), can be used to point to objects > of unknown type." > That is speaking about a pointer-type. What part of pointer-type don't you understand? The type of pointer is not always what it points to, especially with a void pointer. > >> >> >>>> p is a pointer to....*drumroll*.. what it points to. Your attempt to >>>> suggest otherwise is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make your >>>> arguemnt correct, but it only makes you even more incorrect. >>> >>> p is a pointer to void; what object p points to does not change the >>> type of p; "pointer to void" is the type of p. >>> >> As I have said you are talking about the pointer-type not what it points >> to. >> A pointer-type void pointer, does not point to a void as you incorrectly >> suggest. > > I never said anything "pointed to a void"; I said p was a "pointer to > void" which is a correct term (see above). > No its incorrect if you omit the word "type". It's type is void pointer. When a pointer is a pointer to X, X is the pointed to object, not the pointer type. When you say a pointer is type pointer to X, then there is a different meaning implied altogether. You INCORRECTLY use the former term , with the later definition. > I do not care about terms such as "pointer-type" that you define; I care > about terms defined by the C++ Standard. > You don't care about anything except YOU being right, even when you are blatantly wrong. You have once again been proven wrong and you are and always will be a proven idiot. Why don't you go fuck off back into yur hole or something and stop speaking bullshit as usual :-) A void pointer points to a void HAHA , you are such a fuckin moron Leigh. Sometimes you really need to take a good look in the mirror and maybe bang your head of it a few times. Not to hard though or you might break it. (the mirror not your head)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 19:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pvmdnYMzsIPZEzXQnZ2dnUVZ8hqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3778 |
On 15/04/2011 18:55, Paul wrote: [...] > > A void pointer points to a void HAHA , you are such a fuckin moron > Leigh. Sometimes you really need to take a good look in the mirror and > maybe bang your head of it a few times. Not to hard though or you might > break it. (the mirror not your head) Who said a void pointer points to a void? I certainly didn't; I said "pointer to void" which is a correct term (according to the C++ Standard) and is a synonym of "void pointer". You are just one big fail troll with nothing better to do; it is quite pathetic really. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 19:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Pm0qp.31484$0j7.23506@newsfe20.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3779 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:pvmdnYMzsIPZEzXQnZ2dnUVZ8hqdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 15/04/2011 18:55, Paul wrote: > [...] > >> >> A void pointer points to a void HAHA , you are such a fuckin moron >> Leigh. Sometimes you really need to take a good look in the mirror and >> maybe bang your head of it a few times. Not to hard though or you might >> break it. (the mirror not your head) > > Who said a void pointer points to a void? I certainly didn't; I said > "pointer to void" which is a correct term (according to the C++ Standard) > and is a synonym of "void pointer". > > You are just one big fail troll with nothing better to do; it is quite > pathetic really. > No its a ..... type pointer to void. More commonly a void pointer. You said it was a pointer to a void. This is different from saying its a type pointer to void.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 19:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <-7SdnSbKItg9CTXQnZ2dnUVZ8kmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3783 |
On 15/04/2011 19:43, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:pvmdnYMzsIPZEzXQnZ2dnUVZ8hqdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 15/04/2011 18:55, Paul wrote: >> [...] >> >>> >>> A void pointer points to a void HAHA , you are such a fuckin moron >>> Leigh. Sometimes you really need to take a good look in the mirror and >>> maybe bang your head of it a few times. Not to hard though or you might >>> break it. (the mirror not your head) >> >> Who said a void pointer points to a void? I certainly didn't; I said >> "pointer to void" which is a correct term (according to the C++ >> Standard) and is a synonym of "void pointer". >> >> You are just one big fail troll with nothing better to do; it is quite >> pathetic really. >> > No its a ..... type pointer to void. More commonly a void pointer. > > You said it was a pointer to a void. This is different from saying its a > type pointer to void. Now you are backed into a corner you can only respond to argument by telling lies. I did not say it was a "pointer to a void"; I said it was a "pointer to void" which is a synonym of "void pointer". Read the Standard. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 22:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4E2qp.29001$Hl6.26101@newsfe23.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3785 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:-7SdnSbKItg9CTXQnZ2dnUVZ8kmdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 15/04/2011 19:43, Paul wrote: >>>> >>>> A void pointer points to a void HAHA , you are such a fuckin moron >>>> Leigh. Sometimes you really need to take a good look in the mirror and >>>> maybe bang your head of it a few times. Not to hard though or you might >>>> break it. (the mirror not your head) >>> >>> Who said a void pointer points to a void? I certainly didn't; I said >>> "pointer to void" which is a correct term (according to the C++ >>> Standard) and is a synonym of "void pointer". >>> >>> You are just one big fail troll with nothing better to do; it is quite >>> pathetic really. >>> >> No its a ..... type pointer to void. More commonly a void pointer. >> >> You said it was a pointer to a void. This is different from saying its a >> type pointer to void. > > Now you are backed into a corner you can only respond to argument by > telling lies. I did not say it was a "pointer to a void"; I said it was a > "pointer to void" which is a synonym of "void pointer". Read the > Standard. > You said it was a pointer to void when you meant it was a TYPE pointer to void. You were incorrect, and I'm not in a corner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 22:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <I8mdnXGE04fAJTXQnZ2dnUVZ8oOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3797 |
On 15/04/2011 22:19, Paul wrote: > > "Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > news:-7SdnSbKItg9CTXQnZ2dnUVZ8kmdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 15/04/2011 19:43, Paul wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A void pointer points to a void HAHA , you are such a fuckin moron >>>>> Leigh. Sometimes you really need to take a good look in the mirror and >>>>> maybe bang your head of it a few times. Not to hard though or you >>>>> might >>>>> break it. (the mirror not your head) >>>> >>>> Who said a void pointer points to a void? I certainly didn't; I said >>>> "pointer to void" which is a correct term (according to the C++ >>>> Standard) and is a synonym of "void pointer". >>>> >>>> You are just one big fail troll with nothing better to do; it is quite >>>> pathetic really. >>>> >>> No its a ..... type pointer to void. More commonly a void pointer. >>> >>> You said it was a pointer to a void. This is different from saying its a >>> type pointer to void. >> >> Now you are backed into a corner you can only respond to argument by >> telling lies. I did not say it was a "pointer to a void"; I said it >> was a "pointer to void" which is a synonym of "void pointer". Read the >> Standard. >> > You said it was a pointer to void when you meant it was a TYPE pointer > to void. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. > You were incorrect, and I'm not in a corner. Yeah, whatever, dream on. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 22:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <383qp.24564$KZ7.2189@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3802 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote in message news:I8mdnXGE04fAJTXQnZ2dnUVZ8oOdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 15/04/2011 22:19, Paul wrote: >>>>>> A void pointer points to a void HAHA , you are such a fuckin moron >>>>>> Leigh. Sometimes you really need to take a good look in the mirror >>>>>> and >>>>>> maybe bang your head of it a few times. Not to hard though or you >>>>>> might >>>>>> break it. (the mirror not your head) >>>>> >>>>> Who said a void pointer points to a void? I certainly didn't; I said >>>>> "pointer to void" which is a correct term (according to the C++ >>>>> Standard) and is a synonym of "void pointer". >>>>> >>>>> You are just one big fail troll with nothing better to do; it is quite >>>>> pathetic really. >>>>> >>>> No its a ..... type pointer to void. More commonly a void pointer. >>>> >>>> You said it was a pointer to a void. This is different from saying its >>>> a >>>> type pointer to void. >>> >>> Now you are backed into a corner you can only respond to argument by >>> telling lies. I did not say it was a "pointer to a void"; I said it >>> was a "pointer to void" which is a synonym of "void pointer". Read the >>> Standard. >>> >> You said it was a pointer to void when you meant it was a TYPE pointer >> to void. > > I said what I meant and I meant what I said. > >> You were incorrect, and I'm not in a corner. > > Yeah, whatever, dream on. > Just admit it you are wrong. int* p = new int[7]; The above is a pointer to an array of ints. Its type is int* because thats the way pointers to arrays work in C++. This is supported by many authorities and the C++ standard, why do you refuse to acccept its the way things are? Your latest attempt to disprove this has been an attempt to twist the meaning of "is a pointer to" to mean "is type pointer to", where you posted a snippet from the standards ref: 3.9.2/4 "Objects of cv-qualified (3.9.3) or cv-unqualified type void* (pointer to void), can be used to point to objects of unknown type." The above snippet clearly states *TYPE* , it agrees with me not with you. HAHA. You fail so much its becoming ridiculous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | crisgoogle <crisd@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1816dfdd-5330-4f7a-9b21-b07be56ded12@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3724 |
On Apr 14, 3:04 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Leigh Johnston" <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:bvCdnUEhg_UjyTrQnZ2dnUVZ8jWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > > On 14/04/2011 20:55, Paul wrote: > >>>>>> On Apr 14, 2:50 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > >> You said that char (*p)[3] points to a 1d array and not to a 2d array, > >> but the standard states different. > > > p is a pointer to a 1d array and the standard does not state different; p > > may point to a 1d array subobject of a 2d array and if it is pointing to > > the first 1d array subobject of the 2d array then one can say it points to > > a 2d array but this is informal language and technically inaccurate. As > > others have said "points into" is a more acceptable term that covers all > > bases. > > This is utter nonsesne the C++ standard states clearly what a pointer to an > array is and how it behaves. > A pointer to a 2d array, when derefernced returns a 1d array subobject. And > that is a FACT defined in the C++ Standard. No, the standard says that a 2d array (NOT a _pointer_ to a 2d array, but just a 2d array) will be converted to a pointer to 1d array, and this pointer-to- 1d-array, when dereferenced, yields (of course) a 1d array. Read 8.3.4p7 a little more carefully. If this isn't your reference (and it _is_ the one you've used in the past), then what part of the standard supports your claim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 01:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o3Mpp.11463$cx.9230@newsfe24.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3726 |
"crisgoogle" <crisd@telus.net> wrote in message news:1816dfdd-5330-4f7a-9b21-b07be56ded12@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> You said that char (*p)[3] points to a 1d array and not to a 2d array, >> >> but the standard states different. >> >> > p is a pointer to a 1d array and the standard does not state different; >> > p >> > may point to a 1d array subobject of a 2d array and if it is pointing >> > to >> > the first 1d array subobject of the 2d array then one can say it points >> > to >> > a 2d array but this is informal language and technically inaccurate. As >> > others have said "points into" is a more acceptable term that covers >> > all >> > bases. >> >> This is utter nonsesne the C++ standard states clearly what a pointer to >> an >> array is and how it behaves. >> A pointer to a 2d array, when derefernced returns a 1d array subobject. >> And >> that is a FACT defined in the C++ Standard. >No, the standard says that a 2d array (NOT a _pointer_ to a 2d array, >but just >a 2d array) will be converted to a pointer to 1d array, and this >pointer-to- >1d-array, when dereferenced, yields (of course) a 1d array. Yes it says exactly what I say. The following is a 2d array converted to a pointer: char arr[8][8]; char (*p)[8] = arr; The pointer is a pointer to a 2dim array, its type is pointer to (2-1)dim array so that when its dereferenced it returns an (n-1) dim array. That is how pointers to arrays work in C++ and its explained so in the C++ standards. The above is how an array is converted to a pointer the following is possible but not what is generally meant by array to pointer conversion: char (*pp)[8][8] = &arr; This is not what happens when an array is converted to a pointer. Similarly with 1d arrays: char arr[8]; char* p = arr; /*Convert array to pointer*/ char (*p)[8] = &arr; /*Differs in level of indirection , not a standard conversion.*/ According to the C++ standard the correct terminology for array to pointer conversion is exactly what I have said. An array of 10 chars , when converted to a pointer, is of pointer-type char* , not char (*p)[10]. >Read 8.3.4p7 a little more carefully. If this isn't your reference >(and it >_is_ the one you've used in the past), then what part of the standard >supports >your claim? I quote the section below , it fully explains how arrays work in C++. "8.3.4 Arrays 7 A consistent rule is followed for multidimensional arrays. If E is an ndimensional array of rank i´ j´ . . . ´k, then E appearing in an expression is converted to a pointer to an (n - 1 )dimensional array with rank j´ . . . ´k. If the * operator, either explicitly or implicitly as a result of subscripting, is applied to this pointer, the result is the pointedto (n - 1 )dimensional array, which itself is immediately converted into a pointer."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 01:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd74b5de-55d5-42e1-8b31-aca704574868@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3731 |
On Apr 15, 2:11 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "crisgoogle" <cr...@telus.net> wrote in message > > news:1816dfdd-5330-4f7a-9b21-b07be56ded12@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> You said that char (*p)[3] points to a 1d array and not to a 2d array, > >> >> but the standard states different. > > >> > p is a pointer to a 1d array and the standard does not state different; > >> > p > >> > may point to a 1d array subobject of a 2d array and if it is pointing > >> > to > >> > the first 1d array subobject of the 2d array then one can say it points > >> > to > >> > a 2d array but this is informal language and technically inaccurate. As > >> > others have said "points into" is a more acceptable term that covers > >> > all > >> > bases. > > >> This is utter nonsesne the C++ standard states clearly what a pointer to > >> an > >> array is and how it behaves. > >> A pointer to a 2d array, when derefernced returns a 1d array subobject. > >> And > >> that is a FACT defined in the C++ Standard. > >No, the standard says that a 2d array (NOT a _pointer_ to a 2d array, > >but just > >a 2d array) will be converted to a pointer to 1d array, and this > >pointer-to- > >1d-array, when dereferenced, yields (of course) a 1d array. > > Yes it says exactly what I say. > > The following is a 2d array converted to a pointer: > char arr[8][8]; > char (*p)[8] = arr; > > The pointer is a pointer to a 2dim array, its type is pointer to (2-1)dim > array so that when its dereferenced it returns an (n-1) dim array. OK, so... p is a pointer to a 2d array, but it's __type__ is a pointer to 1d array. That's the first time I have heard of such a distinction in this context. So what is the difference between "X is" and "type of X is"? (I'll tell you: there's no distinction, and p __is__ what its type is, and that is a pointer to 1d array. And because at runtime p points to the first element of arr, we __commonly say__ that it points to arr). Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 12:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1WVpp.22062$KZ7.16417@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3737 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fd74b5de-55d5-42e1-8b31-aca704574868@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 2:11 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "crisgoogle" <cr...@telus.net> wrote in message > > news:1816dfdd-5330-4f7a-9b21-b07be56ded12@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> You said that char (*p)[3] points to a 1d array and not to a 2d > >> >> array, > >> >> but the standard states different. > > >> > p is a pointer to a 1d array and the standard does not state > >> > different; > >> > p > >> > may point to a 1d array subobject of a 2d array and if it is pointing > >> > to > >> > the first 1d array subobject of the 2d array then one can say it > >> > points > >> > to > >> > a 2d array but this is informal language and technically inaccurate. > >> > As > >> > others have said "points into" is a more acceptable term that covers > >> > all > >> > bases. > > >> This is utter nonsesne the C++ standard states clearly what a pointer > >> to > >> an > >> array is and how it behaves. > >> A pointer to a 2d array, when derefernced returns a 1d array subobject. > >> And > >> that is a FACT defined in the C++ Standard. > >No, the standard says that a 2d array (NOT a _pointer_ to a 2d array, > >but just > >a 2d array) will be converted to a pointer to 1d array, and this > >pointer-to- > >1d-array, when dereferenced, yields (of course) a 1d array. > > Yes it says exactly what I say. > > The following is a 2d array converted to a pointer: > char arr[8][8]; > char (*p)[8] = arr; > > The pointer is a pointer to a 2dim array, its type is pointer to (2-1)dim > array so that when its dereferenced it returns an (n-1) dim array. OK, so... p is a pointer to a 2d array, but it's __type__ is a pointer to 1d array. That's the first time I have heard of such a distinction in this context. So what is the difference between "X is" and "type of X is"? (I'll tell you: there's no distinction, and p __is__ what its type is, and that is a pointer to 1d array. And because at runtime p points to the first element of arr, we __commonly say__ that it points to arr). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So what is a) Your confusion b) your argument? As far as I am aware you , like the others , beleive that with a simple 1d array: int* p= new int[6]; p is a pointer to a single int and not a pointer to the array. But according tot he standards, Bjarne and C FAQs, a pointer to a 1d array is exactly the same type of pointer as a pointer to a single element. So what exactly is your disagreement with this? Why do you have a problem accepting this is the way pointers to arrays work in C++? If you are just going to continue arguing because you cannot accept that you're wrong, then lets clarifiy what exactly are you trying to argue about now? What is your argument now exactly, the definition of the word "is" or some other bullshit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 05:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa585f67-fb2c-4aea-a476-1c4055a7e77f@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3741 |
On Apr 15, 1:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > As far as I am aware you , like the others , beleive that with a simple 1d > array: > int* p= new int[6]; > p is a pointer to a single int and not a pointer to the array. But > according tot he standards, Bjarne and C FAQs, a pointer to a 1d array is > exactly the same type of pointer as a pointer to a single element. This is your __interpretation__, and is __not__ an accurate one. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 13:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <CJWpp.597$IK1.250@newsfe10.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3744 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fa585f67-fb2c-4aea-a476-1c4055a7e77f@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 1:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > As far as I am aware you , like the others , beleive that with a simple 1d > array: > int* p= new int[6]; > p is a pointer to a single int and not a pointer to the array. But > according tot he standards, Bjarne and C FAQs, a pointer to a 1d array is > exactly the same type of pointer as a pointer to a single element. This is your __interpretation__, and is __not__ an accurate one. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is your interpretation? Is it the case that, as I said, you think p does not point to an array? I say p can point to an array you say this is not accurate. What exactly, IYO, is innacurate about this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 06:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4e5d653-bc03-4f4e-a4e5-cb13aad00483@v33g2000prn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3745 |
On Apr 15, 2:19 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:fa585f67-fb2c-4aea-a476-1c4055a7e77f@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 15, 1:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > As far as I am aware you , like the others , beleive that with a simple 1d > > array: > > int* p= new int[6]; > > p is a pointer to a single int and not a pointer to the array. But > > according tot he standards, Bjarne and C FAQs, a pointer to a 1d array is > > exactly the same type of pointer as a pointer to a single element. > > This is your __interpretation__, and is __not__ an accurate one. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > What is your interpretation? I don't need interpretation, I know what is technically and practically correct. And your __interpretation__ isn't any of that. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 14:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g4Ypp.19561$2o1.3337@newsfe18.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3756 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e4e5d653-bc03-4f4e-a4e5-cb13aad00483@v33g2000prn.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 2:19 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:fa585f67-fb2c-4aea-a476-1c4055a7e77f@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 15, 1:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > As far as I am aware you , like the others , beleive that with a simple > > 1d > > array: > > int* p= new int[6]; > > p is a pointer to a single int and not a pointer to the array. But > > according tot he standards, Bjarne and C FAQs, a pointer to a 1d array > > is > > exactly the same type of pointer as a pointer to a single element. > > This is your __interpretation__, and is __not__ an accurate one. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > What is your interpretation? I don't need interpretation, I know what is technically and practically correct. And your __interpretation__ isn't any of that. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx My interpretation is backed up by quotations form Bjarne Stroustrup and the C FAQs, and the C++ standard. You don't even have an argument anymore because your original argument has been proven incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 06:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa88db08-327e-4ae1-8fbe-f3dfe213ab48@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3759 |
On Apr 15, 3:52 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I don't need interpretation, I know what is technically and > practically correct. And your __interpretation__ isn't any of that. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > My interpretation is backed up by quotations form Bjarne Stroustrup and the > C FAQs, and the C++ standard. It's not. You are __attempting__ to back it up through faulty logic and spurious insults. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 16:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4KZpp.5954$ZU7.118@newsfe11.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3760 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fa88db08-327e-4ae1-8fbe-f3dfe213ab48@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 3:52 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I don't need interpretation, I know what is technically and > practically correct. And your __interpretation__ isn't any of that. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > My interpretation is backed up by quotations form Bjarne Stroustrup and > the > C FAQs, and the C++ standard. It's not. You are __attempting__ to back it up through faulty logic and spurious insults. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes it is. Who are you to say otherwise when you don't even have an argument anymore? Remind me what exactly is your argument again? Oh you cant because your argument has been proven to be incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 05:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79b6aa65-7dbd-4c1b-9925-698ba26a2ba3@o21g2000prh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3744 |
On Apr 15, 1:06 pm, Goran <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is your __interpretation__, and is __not__ an accurate one. Do you have this conception that, after being told this a large finite number of times, a light Paul will come to believe it? Because I have no freaking idea how you came by that conception. I believe he's wrong. You believe he's wrong. Paul believes he's right. Maybe some others agree with him - I don't know There is no possible way on earth any of us are going to convince the other. None at all. Accept that. And let it go. Let it go, man. Just let it go. And when he starts a new thread in an attempt to restart his argument, ignore it. Please. Just ignore it. However much it riles you - and it clearly upsets you quite a lot - please, please, please, in the name of rationality, just ignore it. Please. If you saw a man on the street wearing a sandwich board amd shouting "Justin Bieber is the antichrist", and quoting scripture to back it up, I don't believe you'd waste hours of your life debating him on the street - and exhaustively searching the Bible for evidence that the antichrist will not appear as a mildly annoying Canadian - not least because you'd look as crazy as he is. Well, that applies on the internet too. You don't have to prove yourself right - just prove yourself sane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 14:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lMXpp.21328$2W5.2168@newsfe16.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3749 |
"gwowen" <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote in message news:79b6aa65-7dbd-4c1b-9925-698ba26a2ba3@o21g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 1:06 pm, Goran <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is your __interpretation__, and is __not__ an accurate one. Do you have this conception that, after being told this a large finite number of times, a light Paul will come to believe it? Because I have no freaking idea how you came by that conception. I believe he's wrong. You believe he's wrong. Paul believes he's right. Maybe some others agree with him - I don't know xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I believe Bjarne stroustrup and the C faq's and the C++ standard. Yes I beleive Bjarne Stroustrup is correct when he says that a char* can point to an single char OR an array of chars. Just accept you are in the wrong and run away, with a few defiant name calling insults as you run off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 10:44 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <90pblsFeeiU20@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3724 |
On 04/15/11 10:04 AM, Paul wrote: > > Your understanding is flawed, the C++ standard defines a pointer to a 2d > array to be of this type/ level of indirection. > > No. According to the C++ standards, a pointer to an array is a different > level of indirection, but in the opposite direction from what you are > saying. Come on, get it right. Is there one standard that defines the C++ language or more than one? Which sections on the mythical other language (not library extension) standard are you referring to? Citations, please. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web