Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #163857 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-12-16 11:13 -0300 |
| Last post | 2021-12-18 12:11 -0300 |
| Articles | 4 on this page of 44 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-16 11:13 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-16 14:23 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-16 11:57 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-16 17:42 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-16 18:14 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-16 21:14 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-16 16:42 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 12:44 -0800
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 12:06 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-16 21:34 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 14:14 -0800
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-16 23:44 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 12:09 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-16 16:23 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-16 16:25 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-16 21:08 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 12:54 -0800
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-17 10:53 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 11:39 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-12-18 16:31 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-18 18:56 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-25 21:29 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-18 18:29 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 11:32 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-16 21:34 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-16 22:20 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 12:02 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 12:34 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-18 18:36 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-18 21:17 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-16 18:59 -0500
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-16 18:38 -0500
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-16 23:50 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-17 07:34 -0800
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-17 17:48 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-16 23:56 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-16 19:06 -0500
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-17 00:10 +0000
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 12:32 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 12:30 -0300
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-17 11:08 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-17 16:24 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-17 18:17 +0100
Re: on understanding & and pointer arithmetic Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-12-18 12:11 -0300
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-17 11:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sphnjm$hq3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163857 |
On 16/12/2021 22:15, Stefan Ram wrote: > Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> writes: >> My intuition says that a[3] is the same as a + 3. > > Well, you need to know where to look it up. Intuition cannot > tell you this. You need to grab a copy of the C standard and > then lookup the section on those operators! > > Alternatively, you can also read in a /draft/ of the C standard. > As far as I know, these drafts are published for discussion and > are available without pay. > >> So I think I must correct my intuition to remember that &var does not >> produce a type ``char *''. What does it produce? Which reference could >> I check to see an official statement of the fact? > > The same: a copy of the C standard. > >> My real request is --- can you educate me on this matter? > > The best education is to get a copy of the C standard and > then look up the operators you are interested in. > > Quoted from the "Abstract" at the beginning of the C standards: """ A lthough this International Standard is intended to guide knowledgeable C language programmers as well as implementors of C language translation systems, the document itself is not designed to serve as a tutorial. """ When someone asks the meaning of a traffic sign, you do not point them to a law library. When someone asks the meaning of an expression in C, you do not point them at the standards. Once the OP has a stronger grasp of the language and more experience working with it, then the standards are a useful /reference/ of precise detail. They are not designed for education. This group has a reputation for being far too concerned about the minutiae of the standards than giving useable help and practical advice to people with questions about C. There is space for all kinds of discussion here, but it is important to try to meet people's questions at an appropriate level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-17 16:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <spia32$re1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #163913 |
On 12/17/2021 11:08 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 16/12/2021 22:15, Stefan Ram wrote: >> Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> writes: >>> My intuition says that a[3] is the same as a + 3. >> >> Well, you need to know where to look it up. Intuition cannot >> tell you this. You need to grab a copy of the C standard and >> then lookup the section on those operators! >> >> Alternatively, you can also read in a /draft/ of the C standard. >> As far as I know, these drafts are published for discussion and >> are available without pay. >> >>> So I think I must correct my intuition to remember that &var does not >>> produce a type ``char *''. What does it produce? Which reference could >>> I check to see an official statement of the fact? >> >> The same: a copy of the C standard. >> >>> My real request is --- can you educate me on this matter? >> >> The best education is to get a copy of the C standard and >> then look up the operators you are interested in. >> >> > > Quoted from the "Abstract" at the beginning of the C standards: > > """ > A lthough this International Standard is intended to guide knowledgeable > C language programmers as well as implementors of C language translation > systems, the document itself is not designed to serve as a tutorial. > """ > > When someone asks the meaning of a traffic sign, you do not point them > to a law library. When someone asks the meaning of an expression in C, > you do not point them at the standards. > > Once the OP has a stronger grasp of the language and more experience > working with it, then the standards are a useful /reference/ of precise > detail. They are not designed for education. > > This group has a reputation for being far too concerned about the > minutiae of the standards than giving useable help and practical advice > to people with questions about C. There is space for all kinds of > discussion here, but it is important to try to meet people's questions > at an appropriate level. True, and it's not just about "level" (which might sound patronizing). More properly I'd say it is about the English language and wording. "Standardese" is notoriously unfriendly at any level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-17 18:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <spigmt$io4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163917 |
On 17/12/2021 16:24, Manfred wrote: > On 12/17/2021 11:08 AM, David Brown wrote: >> >> This group has a reputation for being far too concerned about the >> minutiae of the standards than giving useable help and practical advice >> to people with questions about C. There is space for all kinds of >> discussion here, but it is important to try to meet people's questions >> at an appropriate level. > > True, and it's not just about "level" (which might sound patronizing). > More properly I'd say it is about the English language and wording. > "Standardese" is notoriously unfriendly at any level. Yes indeed. It's also important to remember that some people might not be as fluent in English as others. While many of the non-native English speakers here have excellent English skills, some might not. We (and that definitely includes me) don't always write in a way that is easy to read for those that are not as proficient. (At least no one has to try to understand my Scottish accent in spoken English :-) ) None of this is a criticism of people who can and do discus the standards in all their glory and complexity - that's is just as much a part of what we do in this group. And topic drift in threads is the way Usenet works - no one "owns" threads and expects focus on their question. (We are not paid technical support, and we chat about what we want.) But many of us could sometimes benefit from keeping in mind the kind of answer that would be of most help to someone who asks a question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-12-18 12:11 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <86wnk254ny.fsf@levado.to> |
| In reply to | #163913 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 16/12/2021 22:15, Stefan Ram wrote: [...] >> The best education is to get a copy of the C standard and >> then look up the operators you are interested in. > > Quoted from the "Abstract" at the beginning of the C standards: > > """ > A lthough this International Standard is intended to guide knowledgeable > C language programmers as well as implementors of C language translation > systems, the document itself is not designed to serve as a tutorial. > """ > > When someone asks the meaning of a traffic sign, you do not point them > to a law library. When someone asks the meaning of an expression in C, > you do not point them at the standards. > > Once the OP has a stronger grasp of the language and more experience > working with it, then the standards are a useful /reference/ of precise > detail. They are not designed for education. > > This group has a reputation for being far too concerned about the > minutiae of the standards than giving useable help and practical advice > to people with questions about C. There is space for all kinds of > discussion here, but it is important to try to meet people's questions > at an appropriate level. ``A man after my own heart.''
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web