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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 00:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdLpp.27633$rF.378@newsfe12.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3729 |
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:90pblsFeeiU20@mid.individual.net... > 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. > 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 01:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d44ee5e-985f-4ebc-a391-9f6aa61ad75e@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3678 |
On Apr 14, 5:26 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:149c55b8-2efb-4c39-913e-e6d204cb9676@o21g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 2:50 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > No, conclusion is fine. Nonsense are your attempts to equal "is" and
> > "points to". And, they lead to poor coding and errors (see your own
> > attempts earlier in this thread to explain your stance).
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Do you accept that the same pointer-type can point to an char or an array
> > of
> > char's?
>
> I accept that when pointer points to the first element of an array, we
> commonly say that it points to an array.
>
> But in
>
> int a[1];
> int (*p)[1] = &a;
>
> p is an actual, in C type system sense, pointer to an array. And
> because of such things, one should take mental note when saying
> "pointer to an array" for a pointer pointing to array's first element.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Do you accpet that when Bjarne Stroustrup says a char* can point to a single
> char or an array of chars. He is in fact techincally correct. And he fully
> understand the C++ type system.
I accept, no problem. He is not saying that a char* __is__ a pointer
to an array of char, he is saying that it can __point to__.
He is merely using common expedient way of talking about these things,
where we say that TYPE*, when it points to the __first element__ of
the array, points to the __array__.
> Also do you accept what is detailed int he C++ standards where it clarifies
> that a pointer to an array, when dereferenced , returns an (n-1) dim array?
I don't know what part of standard are talking to, but I am pretty
sure that you are wrong. It rather returns a __reference to same-
dimension array__, e.g.:
void f()
{
int a[2][2]; // 2 dim array
int (*p)[2] = &a[0]; // pointer to 1d array.
int (&br)[2] = *p; // dereferencing returns a reference to a 1d array.
}
Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 12:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s4Wpp.5521$Y71.4977@newsfe17.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3736 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9d44ee5e-985f-4ebc-a391-9f6aa61ad75e@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com... On Apr 14, 5:26 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:149c55b8-2efb-4c39-913e-e6d204cb9676@o21g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 2:50 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > No, conclusion is fine. Nonsense are your attempts to equal "is" and > > "points to". And, they lead to poor coding and errors (see your own > > attempts earlier in this thread to explain your stance). > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Do you accept that the same pointer-type can point to an char or an > > array > > of > > char's? > > I accept that when pointer points to the first element of an array, we > commonly say that it points to an array. > > But in > > int a[1]; > int (*p)[1] = &a; > > p is an actual, in C type system sense, pointer to an array. And > because of such things, one should take mental note when saying > "pointer to an array" for a pointer pointing to array's first element. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Do you accpet that when Bjarne Stroustrup says a char* can point to a > single > char or an array of chars. He is in fact techincally correct. And he fully > understand the C++ type system. I accept, no problem. He is not saying that a char* __is__ a pointer to an array of char, he is saying that it can __point to__. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do you accept that the char* points to an array of chars or not? Do you accpet that int* p = new int[7]; p points to an array of ints? If you do shut up and accept defeat. If you don't shut up you are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 05:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6fddafc-32b2-4ee2-95d8-dd6a3c1dbb71@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3742 |
On Apr 15, 1:35 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Do you accpet that when Bjarne Stroustrup says a char* can point to a > > single > > char or an array of chars. He is in fact techincally correct. And he fully > > understand the C++ type system. > > I accept, no problem. He is not saying that a char* __is__ a pointer > to an array of char, he is saying that it can __point to__. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Do you accept that the char* points to an array of chars or not? I accept that we __commonly say__ that, when such pointer points to the first element of an array, it points to the array. Underlying truth is, though, that such pointer __is__ a pointer to a __single__ array element (here, first). Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 13:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <GPWpp.5525$Y71.4331@newsfe17.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3743 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6fddafc-32b2-4ee2-95d8-dd6a3c1dbb71@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 1:35 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Do you accpet that when Bjarne Stroustrup says a char* can point to a > > single > > char or an array of chars. He is in fact techincally correct. And he > > fully > > understand the C++ type system. > > I accept, no problem. He is not saying that a char* __is__ a pointer > to an array of char, he is saying that it can __point to__. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Do you accept that the char* points to an array of chars or not? I accept that we __commonly say__ that, when such pointer points to the first element of an array, it points to the array. Underlying truth is, though, that such pointer __is__ a pointer to a __single__ array element (here, first). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Well you have to accept it don't you. Because this is the way it works. But you add a "but" clause to your acceptance, so you still disagree. You seem confused, inconsistent and you don't know what you are talking about. Your "but" clause seems to suggest that the pointer doesn't really point to an array because the pointer-type is a pointer to int. But you cannot make this clear because instead of saying the pointer-type you say such pointer___is__a pointer to a___single___ array element. When you probably mean to say the pointer-type is a pointer to an int.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4662b8c2-a438-4be3-943a-bf5b258b7b76@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3746 |
On Apr 15, 2:26 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Your "but" clause seems to suggest that the pointer doesn't really point to > an array because the pointer-type is a pointer to int. My "but" accepts the desire for expediency in communication, nothing more. Pointer still __is__ a pointer to the first element of the array. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 16:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <zNZpp.34535$rF.32143@newsfe12.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3755 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4662b8c2-a438-4be3-943a-bf5b258b7b76@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 2:26 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Your "but" clause seems to suggest that the pointer doesn't really point > to > an array because the pointer-type is a pointer to int. My "but" accepts the desire for expediency in communication, nothing more. Pointer still __is__ a pointer to the first element of the array. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You argument was that it was a pointer to the first element and only to the first element. It did not point to any array. Now since I have presented evidence that proves the experts think otherwise you seem to have semi accepted the truth , but you do not fully accpet it. So be it , that is your problem. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-17 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dec351b-ec34-4b32-9732-b524c99148c0@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3764 |
On Apr 15, 5:48 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > My "but" accepts the desire for expediency in communication, nothing > more. Pointer still __is__ a pointer to the first element of the > array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You argument was that it was a pointer to the first element and only to the > first element. It did not point to any array. > > Now since I have presented evidence that proves the experts think otherwise Eh!? No, you presented no evidence. You __misinterpreted__ an interview and a part of the standard. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-17 18:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <grFqp.27780$KZ7.27724@newsfe08.ams2> |
| In reply to | #3862 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8dec351b-ec34-4b32-9732-b524c99148c0@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 5:48 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > My "but" accepts the desire for expediency in communication, nothing > more. Pointer still __is__ a pointer to the first element of the > array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You argument was that it was a pointer to the first element and only to > the > first element. It did not point to any array. > > Now since I have presented evidence that proves the experts think > otherwise Eh!? No, you presented no evidence. You __misinterpreted__ an interview and a part of the standard. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx No I quoted some text from websites, no interview misquotations. And I did not misinterpret that standard, the standard clearly states that pointer representation of arrays are (n-1) dimensional.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-19 01:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <578ca21f-ba5b-4a6f-9f86-c9e294d6413d@l36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3873 |
On Apr 17, 7:28 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Eh!? No, you presented no evidence. You __misinterpreted__ an > interview and a part of the standard. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > No I quoted some text from websites, no interview misquotations. Quotes are correct, your __interpretation__ is wrong. > the standard clearly states that > pointer representation of arrays are (n-1) dimensional. Standard does no such thing. not. You made a leap from "array of dimension n, when it appears in an expression, is __converted__ to a pointer to an array of the dimension n-1. The opposite is not true, and standard does not say that. You are misinterpreting that passage. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-19 11:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0Gdrp.20307$cx.3711@newsfe24.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4002 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:578ca21f-ba5b-4a6f-9f86-c9e294d6413d@l36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... On Apr 17, 7:28 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Eh!? No, you presented no evidence. You __misinterpreted__ an > interview and a part of the standard. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > No I quoted some text from websites, no interview misquotations. Quotes are correct, your __interpretation__ is wrong. > the standard clearly states that > pointer representation of arrays are (n-1) dimensional. Standard does no such thing. not. You made a leap from "array of dimension n, when it appears in an expression, is __converted__ to a pointer to an array of the dimension n-1. The opposite is not true, and standard does not say that. You are misinterpreting that passage. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes so if we convert an array to a pointer , the resulting pointer is a pointer to an (n-1) dim array. So now we have a pointer to the array, the pointer-type just happens to be type pointer to (n-1) dim array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-19 05:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <396c6fdf-1bd4-4b03-ade6-8fb2ab0f51d1@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4011 |
On Apr 19, 12:42 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Standard does no such thing. not. You made a leap from "array of > dimension n, when it appears in an expression, is __converted__ to a > pointer to an array of the dimension n-1. The opposite is not true, > and standard does not say that. You are misinterpreting that passage. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Yes so if we convert an array to a pointer , the resulting pointer is a > pointer to an (n-1) dim array. > So now we have a pointer to the array, the pointer-type just happens to be > type pointer to (n-1) dim array. The pointer-type says what the pointer __is__. When dereferenced, it will give you a reference to the first element of the array. When incremented, it will give you next element of the array. When indexed, it will index inside the array. It __never__ points to the array, only to it's elements, first or otherwise. It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it __is__ a duck. Now go huff and puff some more, I see you like that. And it amuses me, too. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-20 16:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <XuTrp.20046$Vm5.13051@newsfe30.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4017 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:396c6fdf-1bd4-4b03-ade6-8fb2ab0f51d1@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... On Apr 19, 12:42 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Standard does no such thing. not. You made a leap from "array of > dimension n, when it appears in an expression, is __converted__ to a > pointer to an array of the dimension n-1. The opposite is not true, > and standard does not say that. You are misinterpreting that passage. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Yes so if we convert an array to a pointer , the resulting pointer is a > pointer to an (n-1) dim array. > So now we have a pointer to the array, the pointer-type just happens to be > type pointer to (n-1) dim array. The pointer-type says what the pointer __is__. When dereferenced, it will give you a reference to the first element of the array. When incremented, it will give you next element of the array. When indexed, it will index inside the array. It __never__ points to the array, only to it's elements, first or otherwise. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From the C standard this is the definition of a ponter-type: "A pointer type describes an object whose value provides a reference to an entity of the referenced type." This is only part of the definiton, the whole definition is publicly available in the C standard, and I am not trying to hide anything I am quoting the part I think is releveant. The value of a pointer provides a reference to an entity, of the referenced type. For a pointer to reference and array of T's, it must be type T*. T is the referenced type not T[Size]. A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, it referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array. It is, under the hood, another pointer object, it does not reference THE ARRAY of T's, it references a different array-type object.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a527bab-6930-4a16-88cb-d33adb909a69@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4114 |
On Apr 20, 5:29 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:396c6fdf-1bd4-4b03-ade6-8fb2ab0f51d1@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 19, 12:42 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Standard does no such thing. not. You made a leap from "array of > > dimension n, when it appears in an expression, is __converted__ to a > > pointer to an array of the dimension n-1. The opposite is not true, > > and standard does not say that. You are misinterpreting that passage. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Yes so if we convert an array to a pointer , the resulting pointer is a > > pointer to an (n-1) dim array. > > So now we have a pointer to the array, the pointer-type just happens to be > > type pointer to (n-1) dim array. > > The pointer-type says what the pointer __is__. When dereferenced, it > will give you a reference to the first element of the array. When > incremented, it will give you next element of the array. When indexed, > it will index inside the array. It __never__ points to the array, only > to it's elements, first or otherwise. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > From the C standard this is the definition of a ponter-type: > "A pointer type describes an object whose value provides a reference to an > entity of the referenced type." > > This is only part of the definiton, the whole definition is publicly > available in the C standard, and I am not trying to hide anything I am > quoting the part I think is releveant. > > The value of a pointer provides a reference to an entity, of the referenced > type. > > For a pointer to reference and array of T's, it must be type T*. T is the > referenced type not T[Size]. > > A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, it > referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array. It is, > under the hood, another pointer object, it does not reference THE ARRAY of > T's, it references a different array-type object. You have no idea what you are talking about. Specifically, "A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, it referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array" is simply nonsense. Among other things, it is nonsense because you are mixing "array-type" and "object" (the latter being an instance of a type). You are also making stuff up as you go along. Standard __nowhere__ says that pointer references anything. It does say that pointer points to something. Therefore, your explanation is worthless. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 18:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lLZrp.40311$5t2.26510@newsfe06.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4122 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9a527bab-6930-4a16-88cb-d33adb909a69@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com... On Apr 20, 5:29 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:396c6fdf-1bd4-4b03-ade6-8fb2ab0f51d1@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 19, 12:42 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Standard does no such thing. not. You made a leap from "array of > > dimension n, when it appears in an expression, is __converted__ to a > > pointer to an array of the dimension n-1. The opposite is not true, > > and standard does not say that. You are misinterpreting that passage. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Yes so if we convert an array to a pointer , the resulting pointer is a > > pointer to an (n-1) dim array. > > So now we have a pointer to the array, the pointer-type just happens to > > be > > type pointer to (n-1) dim array. > > The pointer-type says what the pointer __is__. When dereferenced, it > will give you a reference to the first element of the array. When > incremented, it will give you next element of the array. When indexed, > it will index inside the array. It __never__ points to the array, only > to it's elements, first or otherwise. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > From the C standard this is the definition of a ponter-type: > "A pointer type describes an object whose value provides a reference to an > entity of the referenced type." > > This is only part of the definiton, the whole definition is publicly > available in the C standard, and I am not trying to hide anything I am > quoting the part I think is releveant. > > The value of a pointer provides a reference to an entity, of the > referenced > type. > > For a pointer to reference and array of T's, it must be type T*. T is the > referenced type not T[Size]. > > A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, > it > referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array. It > is, > under the hood, another pointer object, it does not reference THE ARRAY of > T's, it references a different array-type object. You have no idea what you are talking about. Specifically, "A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, it referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array" is simply nonsense. Among other things, it is nonsense because you are mixing "array-type" and "object" (the latter being an instance of a type). xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx An array-type object is not an instance of a type. Its a fancy pointer with typeinfo. Apparently you have no idea, for example the object "arr" is an instance of what type ? int arr[10]; This is an array-type object. The instances here are the instances of integer objects that make up the array. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You are also making stuff up as you go along. Standard __nowhere__ says that pointer references anything. It does say that pointer points to something. Therefore, your explanation is worthless. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Its in the definition that C++ inherits from the C standard. "Apointer type may be derived from a function type, an object type, or an incomplete type, called the referenced type. A pointer type describes an object whose value provides a reference to an entity of the referenced type. A pointer type derived from the referenced type T is sometimes called ''pointer to T''. The construction of a pointer type from a referenced type is called ''pointer type derivation''."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93a3a8b2-06b1-42a1-b1b6-8cf6ae654eff@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4148 |
On Apr 21, 7:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9a527bab-6930-4a16-88cb-d33adb909a69@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 20, 5:29 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:396c6fdf-1bd4-4b03-ade6-8fb2ab0f51d1@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 19, 12:42 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Standard does no such thing. not. You made a leap from "array of > > > dimension n, when it appears in an expression, is __converted__ to a > > > pointer to an array of the dimension n-1. The opposite is not true, > > > and standard does not say that. You are misinterpreting that passage. > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Yes so if we convert an array to a pointer , the resulting pointer is a > > > pointer to an (n-1) dim array. > > > So now we have a pointer to the array, the pointer-type just happens to > > > be > > > type pointer to (n-1) dim array. > > > The pointer-type says what the pointer __is__. When dereferenced, it > > will give you a reference to the first element of the array. When > > incremented, it will give you next element of the array. When indexed, > > it will index inside the array. It __never__ points to the array, only > > to it's elements, first or otherwise. > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > From the C standard this is the definition of a ponter-type: > > "A pointer type describes an object whose value provides a reference to an > > entity of the referenced type." > > > This is only part of the definiton, the whole definition is publicly > > available in the C standard, and I am not trying to hide anything I am > > quoting the part I think is releveant. > > > The value of a pointer provides a reference to an entity, of the > > referenced > > type. > > > For a pointer to reference and array of T's, it must be type T*. T is the > > referenced type not T[Size]. > > > A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, > > it > > referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array. It > > is, > > under the hood, another pointer object, it does not reference THE ARRAY of > > T's, it references a different array-type object. > > You have no idea what you are talking about. Specifically, "A pointer > to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, it > referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array" > is simply nonsense. Among other things, it is nonsense because you are > mixing "array-type" and "object" (the latter being an instance of a > type). > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > An array-type object is not an instance of a type. Its a fancy pointer with > typeinfo. > Apparently you have no idea, for example the object "arr" is an instance of > what type ? > int arr[10]; > > This is an array-type object. The instances here are the instances of > integer objects that make up the array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What you said up here is pretty correct. However, that bears no relevance to what I quoted you about: "A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, it referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array." The above is still nonsense, and your subsequent post didn't explain anything in there. > You are also making stuff up as you go along. Standard __nowhere__ > says that pointer references anything. It does say that pointer points > to something. > > Therefore, your explanation is worthless. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Its in the definition that C++ inherits from the C standard. > > "Apointer type may be derived from a function type, an object type, or an > incomplete > type, called the referenced type. A pointer type describes an object whose > value > provides a reference to an entity of the referenced type. A pointer type > derived from > the referenced type T is sometimes called ''pointer to T''. The construction > of a > pointer type from a referenced type is called ''pointer type derivation''." My words "standard never says that pointer references anything" are correct. Your standard quote, e.g. "A pointer type derived from the referenced type T is sometimes called ''pointer to T''" does not say, nor mean, that pointer __references__ anything, which is what you previous post said. Pointer __points to__ something, and this is what standard does say. And especially in the context of C++, word "reference" typically has another meaning. I believe that you are arbitrarily muddying things up to support your worthless point. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-22 09:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k9bsp.41490$0j7.35986@newsfe20.ams2> |
| In reply to | #4199 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:93a3a8b2-06b1-42a1-b1b6-8cf6ae654eff@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com... On Apr 21, 7:24 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:396c6fdf-1bd4-4b03-ade6-8fb2ab0f51d1@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 19, 12:42 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Standard does no such thing. not. You made a leap from "array of > > > dimension n, when it appears in an expression, is __converted__ to a > > > pointer to an array of the dimension n-1. The opposite is not true, > > > and standard does not say that. You are misinterpreting that passage. > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Yes so if we convert an array to a pointer , the resulting pointer is > > > a > > > pointer to an (n-1) dim array. > > > So now we have a pointer to the array, the pointer-type just happens > > > to > > > be > > > type pointer to (n-1) dim array. > > > The pointer-type says what the pointer __is__. When dereferenced, it > > will give you a reference to the first element of the array. When > > incremented, it will give you next element of the array. When indexed, > > it will index inside the array. It __never__ points to the array, only > > to it's elements, first or otherwise. > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > From the C standard this is the definition of a ponter-type: > > "A pointer type describes an object whose value provides a reference to > > an > > entity of the referenced type." > > > This is only part of the definiton, the whole definition is publicly > > available in the C standard, and I am not trying to hide anything I am > > quoting the part I think is releveant. > > > The value of a pointer provides a reference to an entity, of the > > referenced > > type. > > > For a pointer to reference and array of T's, it must be type T*. T is > > the > > referenced type not T[Size]. > > > A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the > > array, > > it > > referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array. It > > is, > > under the hood, another pointer object, it does not reference THE ARRAY > > of > > T's, it references a different array-type object. > > You have no idea what you are talking about. Specifically, "A pointer > to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, it > referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array" > is simply nonsense. Among other things, it is nonsense because you are > mixing "array-type" and "object" (the latter being an instance of a > type). > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > An array-type object is not an instance of a type. Its a fancy pointer > with > typeinfo. > Apparently you have no idea, for example the object "arr" is an instance > of > what type ? > int arr[10]; > > This is an array-type object. The instances here are the instances of > integer objects that make up the array. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What you said up here is pretty correct. However, that bears no relevance to what I quoted you about: "A pointer to T[Size], such as T (*p)[Size], does not reference the array, it referneces an array-type, which is a different object than the array." The above is still nonsense, and your subsequent post didn't explain anything in there. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The only nonsesne is coming from you. You are trying to argue that a pointer to an array of chars, is a pointer to an array-type object and not a pointer to char type objects. Which is obviously technically incorrect. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > You are also making stuff up as you go along. Standard __nowhere__ > says that pointer references anything. It does say that pointer points > to something. > > Therefore, your explanation is worthless. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Its in the definition that C++ inherits from the C standard. > > "Apointer type may be derived from a function type, an object type, or an > incomplete > type, called the referenced type. A pointer type describes an object whose > value > provides a reference to an entity of the referenced type. A pointer type > derived from > the referenced type T is sometimes called ''pointer to T''. The > construction > of a > pointer type from a referenced type is called ''pointer type > derivation''." My words "standard never says that pointer references anything" are correct. Your standard quote, e.g. "A pointer type derived from the referenced type T is sometimes called ''pointer to T''" does not say, nor mean, that pointer __references__ anything, which is what you previous post said. Pointer __points to__ something, and this is what standard does say. And especially in the context of C++, word "reference" typically has another meaning. I believe that you are arbitrarily muddying things up to support your worthless point. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Its quite obviously you that are muddying things up. You seem to speaking a big pile of shit abut what your interpretation of "references" is. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-01 05:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f86e16c2-a03b-4e01-a5dc-410431677136@f11g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2964 |
On Apr 1, 12:53 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b371e97b-2d73-4cb0-8f96-72f79f8fb61f@r13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 31, 7:20 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:c59c6538-f590-41aa-8336-e44ce7315c8a@1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... > > On Mar 31, 4:55 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > First things first. You do understand now that casts you tried to pull > > > off are UB, right? > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > What exactly is UB? Casting in general produces UB, or only when I cast? > > > In your post > > here:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/1948e01fd0971cac, > > I claimed that first two casts were UB. You claimed that they were > > not. I proved you that they were (read back, please). > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > You haven't proved anything is UB, > > Yes I have. Read this again: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/e274c527afabc5f4 > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > This is your code that is wrong not the cast. You cannot even explain what > is wrong with the cast in your opinion , its just wrong? Being polite when asking for help is somewhat better. You might want to try e.g. this way: "I don't understand compiler errors. I did ABC, compiler told me XYZ. What should I do?" Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-01 12:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <y0jlp.3192$7u3.1368@newsfe04.ams2> |
| In reply to | #2963 |
"Goran" <goran.pusic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b371e97b-2d73-4cb0-8f96-72f79f8fb61f@r13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... On Mar 31, 7:20 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c59c6538-f590-41aa-8336-e44ce7315c8a@1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 31, 4:55 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > First things first. You do understand now that casts you tried to pull > > off are UB, right? > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > What exactly is UB? Casting in general produces UB, or only when I cast? > > In your post > here:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/1948e01fd0971cac, > I claimed that first two casts were UB. You claimed that they were > not. I proved you that they were (read back, please). > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You haven't proved anything is UB, Yes I have. Read this again: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/e274c527afabc5f4 Now... (proof by contradiction follows... Do you know what "proof by contradiction" means, BTW? I hope so. If not, I hope you can google it.) So... See the code? See the line: Base (*p2)[3] = (Base (*)[3])new Derived[2][3]; ? You claimed that one should be able to do it, in this post: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/310cebb655d59715 So, presuming that your cast is not UB, I made you a bit of code that uses your cast and doesn't work correctly. I'll repeat offending part, slightly modified, since you seem to have an issue with assert macro (a macro is not a statement, which is something you don't seem to understand well): Base (*p2)[3] = (Base (*)[3])new Derived[2][3]; // Presumption: no UB in cast. const Base& b = p2[0][1]; if (b.i) std::cout << "This is not possible!"; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is because you think that the pointer-type Base (*)[3], points to an array of Base[3], but it doesn't it points to an array of Derived[3]. Its your code that is wrong because you derefernce p2 as if it were a Base, but it points to a Derived. p2[i] returns i*sizeof(Base[3]), this is not the same as i*sizeof(Derived[3]). The memory layout of the object array is as follows: [[Base][Derived]] [[Base][Derived]] [[Base][Dervied]] You are trying to index this array in chunks sizeof(Base[3]). This example to shows that the pointer-type does not define the object it points to. p2 points to an array of Derived, not an array of Bases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-01 05:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8796d6f6-565a-4758-93fc-51f91342dab0@l30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2965 |
On Apr 1, 1:52 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b371e97b-2d73-4cb0-8f96-72f79f8fb61f@r13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 31, 7:20 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > "Goran" <goran.pu...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:c59c6538-f590-41aa-8336-e44ce7315c8a@1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... > > On Mar 31, 4:55 pm, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > First things first. You do understand now that casts you tried to pull > > > off are UB, right? > > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > What exactly is UB? Casting in general produces UB, or only when I cast? > > > In your post > > here:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/1948e01fd0971cac, > > I claimed that first two casts were UB. You claimed that they were > > not. I proved you that they were (read back, please). > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > You haven't proved anything is UB, > > Yes I have. Read this again: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/e274c527afabc5f4 > > Now... (proof by contradiction follows... Do you know what "proof by > contradiction" means, BTW? I hope so. If not, I hope you can google > it.) > > So... See the code? See the line: > > Base (*p2)[3] = (Base (*)[3])new Derived[2][3]; > > ? > > You claimed that one should be able to do it, in this post:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/310cebb655d59715 > > So, presuming that your cast is not UB, I made you a bit of code that > uses your cast and doesn't work correctly. I'll repeat offending part, > slightly modified, since you seem to have an issue with assert macro > (a macro is not a statement, which is something you don't seem to > understand well): > > Base (*p2)[3] = (Base (*)[3])new Derived[2][3]; // Presumption: no UB > in cast. > const Base& b = p2[0][1]; > if (b.i) std::cout << "This is not possible!"; > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > This is because you think that the pointer-type Base (*)[3], points to an > array of Base[3], but it doesn't it points to an array of Derived[3]. > > Its your code that is wrong because you derefernce p2 as if it were a Base, > but it points to a Derived. First off, p2 is not a Base, it's not even a pointer-to-a-Base, it's a pointer to Base[3]. But that is irrelevant. My code is perfectly fine. I can't possibly dereference p2 as if it were Derived[3], because type of *p2 is Base[3], not Derived[3]. Why did this happen? Because of __your__ cast, not because of anything in __my__ code. > The memory layout of the object array is as follows: > [[Base][Derived]] [[Base][Derived]] [[Base][Dervied]] > > You are trying to index this array in chunks sizeof(Base[3]). Oh. Well, I am glad that you managed to understand the explanation I gave you earlier. > This example to shows that the pointer-type does not define the object it > points to. > p2 points to an array of Derived, not an array of Bases. ... because __your__ cast was UB. Goran.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web