Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #92033 > unrolled thread
| Started by | eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-09 19:37 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-08-10 08:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 387 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Difference between these pointer syntaxes eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> - 2016-08-09 19:37 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-10 01:12 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-09 23:57 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-10 00:29 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-10 20:50 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-10 15:54 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-11 01:20 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 18:01 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-11 07:40 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-11 22:43 +0000
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 11:51 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-10 08:11 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 17:13 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-10 20:57 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 21:21 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-10 14:38 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 23:16 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-10 20:19 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-11 01:36 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 10:49 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-11 11:46 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 13:09 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-11 15:45 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 16:46 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-11 19:44 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 18:58 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-12 01:13 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 11:18 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-12 16:28 +0000
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 18:51 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-12 18:18 +0000
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 11:31 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-12 19:30 +0000
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 20:44 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 14:32 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-12 23:03 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 22:46 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 12:37 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 21:07 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 13:34 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 22:12 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-12 23:24 +0200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-13 00:59 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-13 11:28 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-13 03:56 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-13 12:52 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-13 17:34 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-13 09:44 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-13 18:35 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-13 11:21 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-15 12:35 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-15 15:10 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-15 17:07 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 10:03 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-15 17:26 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:42 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-15 19:04 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 12:27 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-15 20:04 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 13:32 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-15 21:32 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 14:50 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-15 22:38 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 16:03 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-16 00:32 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 17:57 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-16 01:28 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 19:13 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-16 11:01 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-16 08:35 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 07:29 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-16 10:40 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-16 10:48 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-16 12:21 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-16 12:19 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-16 14:03 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-16 13:14 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-16 21:48 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-16 14:14 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-16 15:22 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-16 14:46 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-16 16:41 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-17 08:44 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-17 10:12 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 10:45 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-17 17:06 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 17:06 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 09:58 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-17 16:54 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 09:59 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-17 19:41 +0200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 13:03 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-17 11:45 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 13:10 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-17 23:01 +0200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-17 21:09 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-17 17:16 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 17:20 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 00:04 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 18:01 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 01:03 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 19:10 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-18 11:11 +0200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-18 09:40 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 11:25 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-18 12:51 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 13:22 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-19 00:20 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-19 17:41 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-20 00:17 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-20 13:43 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-20 21:00 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-20 16:00 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-21 00:52 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:04 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-25 18:06 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-26 07:31 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-26 14:25 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 06:36 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-26 15:37 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 07:59 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-26 09:07 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 09:22 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-26 11:22 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 11:21 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 08:37 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-26 09:46 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 09:23 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 12:52 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 10:50 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-26 17:46 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 10:38 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 14:05 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 12:01 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 15:12 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 12:48 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 15:55 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-26 21:02 +0100
otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 16:27 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-26 22:20 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 15:15 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-26 17:01 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 16:45 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 20:32 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-27 03:09 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 22:32 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-27 04:07 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-27 00:24 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-27 07:03 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-27 12:34 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-27 11:46 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-27 20:04 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-27 20:25 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-27 21:32 -0600
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-27 20:42 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-27 20:54 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-08-27 23:58 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-27 22:53 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-27 23:29 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-01 08:21 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-27 19:27 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-27 14:46 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-27 11:45 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-27 04:47 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-27 12:26 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-27 13:06 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-27 13:59 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-27 11:52 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-27 19:31 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-27 13:47 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-27 22:49 +0100
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-27 15:07 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 11:11 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-27 15:57 -0700
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-27 20:50 -0400
Re: otRe: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-27 20:45 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-26 21:18 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-27 00:20 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-27 00:27 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-26 17:01 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-26 19:50 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-26 21:30 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-26 22:11 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-26 23:42 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 21:15 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-27 11:37 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-27 10:47 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-27 12:20 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-27 12:07 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-27 14:52 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-27 21:20 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-27 14:18 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-27 23:14 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-27 20:06 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-27 23:37 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-30 08:51 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-16 20:36 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-19 00:59 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-19 17:53 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-19 18:25 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-19 20:14 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-20 14:37 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-20 13:27 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-20 20:30 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-20 15:30 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-20 15:48 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-20 17:12 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-20 22:20 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-20 13:31 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-20 15:02 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-19 17:26 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-19 19:47 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 15:09 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 15:22 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-17 10:45 +1200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 00:11 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-17 11:25 +1200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-16 16:12 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-17 00:37 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-16 19:12 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-17 11:22 +1200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 01:23 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 20:55 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-17 17:20 -0500
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 17:41 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 16:43 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-18 11:59 +0200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 13:20 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-18 07:35 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 16:16 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-18 08:43 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 16:52 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-19 00:35 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-19 11:22 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-16 16:39 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-16 22:33 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-16 15:32 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 00:00 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-16 17:45 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 10:53 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 07:44 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 08:28 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 10:16 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 15:23 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 15:33 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 17:29 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 10:52 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 20:18 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 13:16 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 21:34 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 23:19 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 16:03 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 16:19 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 14:09 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-17 19:51 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 20:44 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 13:33 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 21:45 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-17 15:37 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 23:48 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-17 16:25 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 18:07 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-17 17:07 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 17:22 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 19:14 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-17 19:03 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-01 08:23 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-01 09:55 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-01 12:39 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-09 15:18 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 09:34 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-04 14:55 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-05 00:05 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-05 01:37 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-11 06:31 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-05 10:51 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-05 14:13 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-05 16:57 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-06 01:21 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-05 17:31 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-06 02:12 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-06 06:42 +0000
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-06 01:47 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-06 08:28 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-06 13:54 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 18:06 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 07:09 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-06 09:29 +0200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-06 09:06 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 18:21 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-11 06:47 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 13:00 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 16:48 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-18 12:05 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-18 05:26 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 14:05 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 00:27 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-19 02:59 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-19 14:28 +0200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 14:25 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-19 06:50 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 15:45 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-19 08:02 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-19 08:19 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 17:35 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-19 10:02 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-19 10:24 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 22:47 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-19 16:08 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-20 00:32 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-19 17:17 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-20 11:59 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-21 04:55 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-22 07:59 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 17:14 +0100
O(n log n) in place median algorithm (was: Difference between these pointer syntaxes) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 23:38 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-19 08:09 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-18 07:27 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-18 17:40 +0200
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 10:34 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-18 09:49 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 13:04 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 13:52 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-18 12:51 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 14:58 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-18 15:36 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-18 09:14 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-18 09:37 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-17 16:46 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 19:03 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-18 01:55 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 11:04 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-18 23:04 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-19 00:10 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 01:08 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-19 11:04 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 12:32 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-19 13:45 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 14:40 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-19 15:30 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 15:54 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-19 16:24 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 16:04 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 00:41 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 16:59 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 01:24 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 08:30 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 10:49 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 19:20 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-18 01:39 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-18 10:47 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 11:03 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-18 11:32 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 00:28 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 12:23 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-17 21:19 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-17 03:10 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 09:47 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-17 08:33 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-17 10:12 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-17 10:04 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-13 09:34 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-18 08:04 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-11 07:51 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 15:57 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-11 09:04 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 09:17 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 19:15 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 20:06 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-11 13:42 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:38 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 20:15 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-11 13:37 -0700
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:54 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 12:04 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-10 11:12 -0400
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 17:27 +0100
Re: Difference between these pointer syntaxes John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 08:19 -0700
Page 15 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 20 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 10:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8760qazncd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #93211 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 10:55:27 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: <snip> >> > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:23:49 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> >> >>> So the technical term "array object" has a special meaning in the >> >>> context of C. But it is best ignored, except by people writing >> >>> compilers. >> >> >> >> What is best ignored are your nutty ideas about how the words >> >> "buffer" and "array" are, or should be, used by people in the >> >> programming community. <snip> > My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject. std::array<int, 10> A; defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned, passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer" in Malcom-speak. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnshte82z3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #93220 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
>> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community.
>
> One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but
> C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject.
>
> std::array<int, 10> A;
>
> defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned,
> passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no
> distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer"
> in Malcom-speak.
And of course C++ has plain arrays with the same semantics that
arrays have in C. But yes, it is telling that when C++ added what
Malcolm would call a "buffer" to the standard library, it chose
the name "array".
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67c78dbe-ac81-4161-b63f-ccf3a8fe488b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #93233 |
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > [...] > >> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. > > > > One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but > > C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject. > > > > std::array<int, 10> A; > > > > defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned, > > passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no > > distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer" > > in Malcom-speak. > > And of course C++ has plain arrays with the same semantics that > arrays have in C. But yes, it is telling that when C++ added what > Malcolm would call a "buffer" to the standard library, it chose > the name "array". > I should have guessed that C++ would also get it wrong. Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage. The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in the sense of "figuratively". An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade ground or battlefield they are standing on. Similarly an array of data is the data, arranged in regular positions in memory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 01:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nql26a$f3d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93242 |
On 06/09/2016 00:57, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >>>> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. >>> >>> One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but >>> C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject. >>> >>> std::array<int, 10> A; >>> >>> defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned, >>> passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no >>> distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer" >>> in Malcom-speak. >> >> And of course C++ has plain arrays with the same semantics that >> arrays have in C. But yes, it is telling that when C++ added what >> Malcolm would call a "buffer" to the standard library, it chose >> the name "array". >> > I should have guessed that C++ would also get it wrong. > > Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage. > The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in > the sense of "figuratively". > An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade > ground or battlefield they are standing on. Similarly an array of > data is the data, arranged in regular positions in memory. With computer memory then at low level there is little difference between the cells you store bytes into, and the bytes themselves. It's very difficult in fact to have a cell that doesn't yet hold a value, not even any of the patterns from 0 to 255. But if you want to specify some criteria for whether a block of memory contains data or non-data, then that would be outside the remit of the language. Certainly if that language is C. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8210a047-835b-4b7b-9f26-e59f61f2490b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #93244 |
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:21:39 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > On 06/09/2016 00:57, Malcolm McLean wrote: > With computer memory then at low level there is little difference > between the cells you store bytes into, and the bytes themselves. > > It's very difficult in fact to have a cell that doesn't yet hold a > value, not even any of the patterns from 0 to 255. > > But if you want to specify some criteria for whether a block of memory > contains data or non-data, then that would be outside the remit of the > language. Certainly if that language is C. > That's not really true. Most implementations of C don't distinguish between garbage and data, though a lot kind of help. It's quite common in debug mode for malloc to return memory initialised to a pattern like 0xC0C0 ..., C0 chosen because it is unlikely to look like a valid value when translated to most higher level types. C makes a special rule for unsigned char, in order to make it possible to implement memcpy() and similar low-level routines. But the other types are allowed to distinguish between data and non-data. It's rarely done, however.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 02:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871t0xygpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #93242 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >> >> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. >> > >> > One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but >> > C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject. >> > >> > std::array<int, 10> A; >> > >> > defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned, >> > passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no >> > distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer" >> > in Malcom-speak. >> >> And of course C++ has plain arrays with the same semantics that >> arrays have in C. But yes, it is telling that when C++ added what >> Malcolm would call a "buffer" to the standard library, it chose >> the name "array". >> > I should have guessed that C++ would also get it wrong. Yes, though looking it up would also have done the job. > Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage. A curious point of view given your background. Alternatively, one might say that metaphorical, ironic, and other creative usages of language always win over dry historical literalism. I doubt that it's ignorance that most often drives this process. A new metaphorical usage (in the case of our "array") or an ironic one (in the case of "literally") emerges and its impact is such that it sticks. Once it becomes common place, you can hardly call it ignorance when people use the word in what is, by then, an accepted sense. The confusion over continually vs. continuously, frequently vs. regularly, uninterested vs. disinterested and so on might well be due to a lack of understanding, but if someone under 30 says that C++ is wicked and C is sick, they are not displaying ignorance. > The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in > the sense of "figuratively". Now? That usage appears in my 1933 printed edition with a quotation from the 19th century. You need to keep up. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 06:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsnssp9i.4qu.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #93242 |
On 2016-09-05, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >> >> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. >> > >> > One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but >> > C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject. >> > >> > std::array<int, 10> A; >> > >> > defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned, >> > passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no >> > distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer" >> > in Malcom-speak. >> >> And of course C++ has plain arrays with the same semantics that >> arrays have in C. But yes, it is telling that when C++ added what >> Malcolm would call a "buffer" to the standard library, it chose >> the name "array". >> > I should have guessed that C++ would also get it wrong. > > Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage. > The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in > the sense of "figuratively". > An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade > ground or battlefield they are standing on. Now what if a soldier steps out of the array? What remains? A buffer of soldiers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 01:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad57d7e5-3913-44ee-af00-089ee0f7971c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #93252 |
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:42:13 AM UTC+1, Ike Naar wrote: > On 2016-09-05, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage. > > The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in > > the sense of "figuratively". > > An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade > > ground or battlefield they are standing on. > > Now what if a soldier steps out of the array? > What remains? A buffer of soldiers? > An array with a gap. A "buffer" in military parlance is an area of land which is designed to be occupied by the enemy, keeping them away from the major strategic locations or homeland the army wants to protect. So the use is similar to the computer use - it's the territory, not the objects upon it. If many soldiers step out of the array, the unit is then in "disarray".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8tv582tq.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #93254 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:42:13 AM UTC+1, Ike Naar wrote:
>> On 2016-09-05, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage.
>> > The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in
>> > the sense of "figuratively".
>> > An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade
>> > ground or battlefield they are standing on.
>>
>> Now what if a soldier steps out of the array?
>> What remains? A buffer of soldiers?
>>
> An array with a gap.
>
> A "buffer" in military parlance is an area of land which is designed to be
> occupied by the enemy, keeping them away from the major strategic locations
> or homeland the army wants to protect. So the use is similar to the computer
> use - it's the territory, not the objects upon it.
>
> If many soldiers step out of the array, the unit is then in "disarray".
Malcom, this isn't about soldiers.
I wrote this previously in this thread. You ignored it.
I challenge you to cite a single reputable source other than
yourself that uses the word "array" in the same way you do.
Specifically, given:
int obj[4];
obj[0] = 10;
obj[1] = 20;
cite a reputable written work, written by someone reasonable
knowledgeable about C, stating that the only "array" resulting from
that code is 2 elements long, and that "obj" is *not* a 4-element
array. Works that say something seemingly similar without using
the word "array" do not count. (If I've misstated your position,
please say so, and explain how.)
Either that, or stop misusing the word "array".
I repeat the challenge. If your usage of the word "array" is correct
(and the rest of us, including the C and C++ standards, are wrong) then
you shouldn't have any trouble coming up with at least one citation.
I should point out that a single citation would not prove your point,
but it would be a start.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 13:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nqme9f$9ej$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93252 |
On 06/09/16 07:42, Ike Naar wrote: > On 2016-09-05, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >> On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>>> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. >>>> >>>> One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but >>>> C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject. >>>> >>>> std::array<int, 10> A; >>>> >>>> defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned, >>>> passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no >>>> distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer" >>>> in Malcom-speak. >>> >>> And of course C++ has plain arrays with the same semantics that >>> arrays have in C. But yes, it is telling that when C++ added what >>> Malcolm would call a "buffer" to the standard library, it chose >>> the name "array". >>> >> I should have guessed that C++ would also get it wrong. >> >> Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage. >> The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in >> the sense of "figuratively". >> An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade >> ground or battlefield they are standing on. > > Now what if a soldier steps out of the array? > What remains? A buffer of soldiers? It is to stop soldiers from stepping out of the array that sentinels are posted at either end. The one at the top end is called the buffer-high soldier, and the one at the other end is called the buffer-low soldier. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 18:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r38xufe1.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93255 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > It is to stop soldiers from stepping out of the array that sentinels > are posted at either end. The one at the top end is called the > buffer-high soldier, and the one at the other end is called the > buffer-low soldier. *Spontaneous Applause*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97c60943-4535-476e-9993-0efd2dbcb1a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #93255 |
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:54:19 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 06/09/16 07:42, Ike Naar wrote: > > On 2016-09-05, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >>> [...] > >>>>> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. > >>>> > >>>> One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but > >>>> C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject. > >>>> > >>>> std::array<int, 10> A; > >>>> > >>>> defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned, > >>>> passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no > >>>> distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer" > >>>> in Malcom-speak. > >>> > >>> And of course C++ has plain arrays with the same semantics that > >>> arrays have in C. But yes, it is telling that when C++ added what > >>> Malcolm would call a "buffer" to the standard library, it chose > >>> the name "array". > >>> > >> I should have guessed that C++ would also get it wrong. > >> > >> Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage. > >> The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in > >> the sense of "figuratively". > >> An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade > >> ground or battlefield they are standing on. > > > > Now what if a soldier steps out of the array? > > What remains? A buffer of soldiers? > > It is to stop soldiers from stepping out of the array that sentinels are > posted at either end. The one at the top end is called the buffer-high > soldier, and the one at the other end is called the buffer-low soldier. > =slap=
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 09:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nqlr9b$9t9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93242 |
On 06/09/16 01:57, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >>>> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. >>> >>> One of the nutty ideas in question is your use of the term array, but >>> C++ has arrays with exactly the meaning you reject. >>> >>> std::array<int, 10> A; >>> >>> defines an object will full citizenship (std::arrays can be assigned, >>> passed to, and returned from functions, for example) but with no >>> distinction about which elements are indeterminate. It's a "buffer" >>> in Malcom-speak. >> >> And of course C++ has plain arrays with the same semantics that >> arrays have in C. But yes, it is telling that when C++ added what >> Malcolm would call a "buffer" to the standard library, it chose >> the name "array". >> > I should have guessed that C++ would also get it wrong. > > Invincible ignorance always wins in the end over matters of usage. > The Oxford English Dictionary has now enshrined "literally" in > the sense of "figuratively". > An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade > ground or battlefield they are standing on. Similarly an array of > data is the data, arranged in regular positions in memory. > Since when has the OED been a source of the definition of /computing/ terms? If you look up "string" in the OED, does it talk about null termination? If you look up "or", does it describe the common language usage (exclusive or) or the computing usage (inclusive or)? If you look up "colour", does it have the correct English spelling "colour" or the spelling mostly used in computing, "color"? It's fine to distinguish between an array, and the valid data within that array. But in c.l.c., or indeed any computing group, please stick to the standard /computing/ usage of terms like "array" - and in c.l.c., stick specifically to the C definition of the term. It really is not much to ask, and it would avoid so many pointless discussions here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-06 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4uptsbtpmhnltvqmu7ha665sbbh8a64uat@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #93242 |
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 16:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >An array of soldiers is the soldiers, not the positions on the parade >ground or battlefield they are standing on. Similarly an array of >data is the data, arranged in regular positions in memory. Your analogy is a false one. Soldiers are arrayed on the parade ground. The meaning of this is that they are in their intended positions, those positions being pre-defined by the officer(s) commanding. An array is an array and the memory locations addressed by that array ALWAYS contain some value, whether that value is useful to the program or not. Likewise, your parade ground always has known locations whether they are filled with soldiers or not. End of dead horse thrashing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 18:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h99ujm9e.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93211 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> I would appreciate it if in the future when you respond to >> something I write the response be about what I was saying, and >> not just used as a pretext to restate one of your inane >> talking points. >> > My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. No, they're not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnk2eilf92.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #93211 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 10:55:27 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >>> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:23:49 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> So the technical term "array object" has a special meaning in the >>>>> context of C. But it is best ignored, except by people writing >>>>> compilers. >>>> >>>> What is best ignored are your nutty ideas about how the words >>>> "buffer" and "array" are, or should be, used by people in the >>>> programming community. >>> >>> I don't have much brief for C++. >>> But they do at least get that right. You may "reserve" space in a vector, >>> which sets the buffer, or you may "resize" it, which sets the number of >>> objects it contains. And no object within the vector may be uninitialised, >>> though the buffer can and probably does just contain raw memory. >>> >>> The buffer and the array (OK, they call it a "vector", but that's >>> another story) are kept separate as concepts, and not confused. >> >> This has nothing to do with what I was saying. Are you so dumb >> that you don't realize that, or did you launch into a left-field >> metaphorical analogy out of some defensive reflex? Or is it that >> you are so focused on what you want to say that you don't bother >> paying attention to what other people are saying? >> >> I would appreciate it if in the future when you respond to >> something I write the response be about what I was saying, and >> not just used as a pretext to restate one of your inane >> talking points. > > My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community. You are deluded. > [...] But how the reply wasn't relevant I don't know. That's because you focus too much on what you want to say instead of what other people are saying. If you would put more effort into hearing and understanding the comments made by other people you wouldn't have this problem as often.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 13:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <np481i$1ho$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92434 |
On 18/08/2016 01:07, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 12:41:25 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >>> The rules are, firstly get clear in your own mind that a buffer is >>> a region of memory, an array is a list of data placed at equal >>> intervals in that memory. >> >> [...] >> >> No. >> >> The unqualified term "an array" is ambiguous. An array object >> is an object of array type, regardless of its current contents. >> Please stop misusing words that have perfectly good definitions. >> > If data are arrayed, they form an "array". You can't have an array > of data if you've no data in it, any more than you can have a square > of soldiers if you have no soldiers. To be fair, you can in > programming have the empty array, that's often a valid concept. > But that's not what you're talking about. You imagine that > double x[100] creates an array of doubles, because on your reading > of the C standard it says that it does. But that buffer could > contain a hundred trap representations, it's not an array of 100 > doubles yet, only when you put data into it. I also like to distinguish kinds of sequential memory, but not with array vs buffer. (And I don't care what data is contained!) I use 'array' and 'block' (as in memory-block). An array is formal type and object, and it might be implemented using a memory block. But a memory-block is lower level and expected to be manipulated with pointers. Then, a buffer might be an array indexed with i; or it might be a block accessed with pointer P, either with an offset i, or by stepping P along it. (This can be illustrated also with the set of file-reading functions I have in a higher-level language, which can read a whole file as: * A block of data (returns a pointer to the first byte) * A single string * A byte-array * A list of strings (one string per line) Each has its uses.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c10763fe-5a9b-4be4-bd09-c71a53da94dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92424 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 6:26:01 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: > The rules are, firstly get clear in your own mind that a buffer is > a region of memory, an array is a list of data placed at equal > intervals in that memory. The language originally designed by Dennis Ritchie specified things in terms of memory addresses and the information that gets written to and read from them. Such an execution model is useful if not essential for embedded and systems programming, but doesn't allow the kinds of optimizations people want for high-end numerical processing. Consequently, the Standards Committee allows compilers to generate code which only behaves in the way the memory- based model would predict if it abides by restrictions which may not be problematic for high-end numerical processing applications, but would make the language unsuitable for some other purposes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 12:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mvkas5gb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #92424 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 11:48:37 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>> On 17/08/2016 23:37, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>> > It works reasonably well.
>>
>> But I'm starting to discover it doesn't actually work that well at all.
>>
>> Every time you declare or come across a pointer: to a single int, to an
>> array of ints, to anything at all, then the language can't get away from
>> the fact that that pointer COULD be pointing to a bunch of those things,
>> not just one.
>>
>> That then COULD be introducing an extra array dimension that you might
>> not want.
>>
>> So that single int pointer could be a 1D array; that 1D array pointer
>> could be a 2D array. And suddenly you can use p[i][j] quite legally even
>> though there is only a 1D array.
>>
>> And it does seem to encourage people to mix everything up in very
>> confusing ways that you can't even figure out from looking at sources.
>>
>> Someone declares int(*A)[] and uses it as a 1D table.
>>
>> Someone else declares int(*A)[] and uses it as a 2D table. It's like one
>> of those magic books that, each time you open it, has something
>> different inside!
>>
> The rules are,
Why not say "my rules are"? Or even "I find the following rules
useful"? There is no reasonable sense in which your rules are "the
rules".
> firstly get clear in your own mind that a buffer is
> a region of memory, an array is a list of data placed at equal
> intervals in that memory.
>
> so
>
> double x[100];
>
> creates a buffer large enough to hold 100 doubles. It doesn't
> create an array of 100 doubles, because there aren't any doubles in
> it.
Yes there are.
> double *x = malloc(100 * sizeof(double));
>
> creates the same buffer, on the heap.
No, it's not a heap. A heap is a largely disorganised pile of things.
The storage here comes from a highly organised data structure. And how
can it be the same buffer?
<snip>
> Most work on arrays will be done in subroutines, which take
> pointers.
>
> double mean(double *x, int N)
Or double mean(const double *x, int N) if you've got a compiler written
in the last quarter of a century. You might even consider
double mean(double *x, size_t n);
> never use travelling pointers, always write
>
> for(i=0;i<N;i++)
> total += x[i];
>
> never
>
> while(x < endptr)
> total += *xptr++; // bad, confusing, hard to read
It's worth pointing out that many people don't find that confusing or at
all hard to read. And I don't think you always follow this rule so is
it a "never except when I know better" rule?
<snip>
> Similarly with 2d arrays
>
> void transpose(double *mtx, int width, int height, double *out)
> {
> int i, j;
>
> for(i=0;i<width;i++)
> {
> for(j=0;j<height;j++)
> out[i*height+j] = mtx[j*width+i];
> }
> }
Or
void transpose(int n, int m, const double src[n][m], double dst[m][n])
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
for (int j = 0; j < m; j++)
dst[j][i] = src[i][j];
}
which many people would find clearer. (It's not directly equivalent
because its a cut-and-paste from the last time you said this.)
> the expressions are a bit of a nuisance, but far less grief
> than messing about with trying to set up 2D arrays.
That depends on the program and on what version of C you may use.
> Some people use this style.
> int mean(double *x, int N, double *xbar)
Others, who don't need to write ancient C, use
int mean(const double *x, int N, double *xbar)
If you can't use const, then neither can you use a prototype and you
end up writing K&R C, something like this:
mean()
double *x, *xbar;
int N;
{ ... }
<snip>
> Now of course you can write
>
> err = mean(&xbar, 100, array)
>
> the compiler won't warn and it can go horribly wrong.
It will if you don't reject using const.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a853c5fa-c270-4837-8b9e-1e6ecc26478e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92449 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 12:05:18 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > Or double mean(const double *x, int N) if you've got a compiler written > in the last quarter of a century. You might even consider > > double mean(double *x, size_t n); > const is mainly clutter. It doesn't really add anything except the ability to pass a const-qualified pointer, though you can argue that it helps to document input vs output. size-t is very confusing. Are you passing the number of elements or the size of the array in bytes? I'd expect a variable of size_t to hold the latter. > > > err = mean(&xbar, 100, array) > > > > the compiler won't warn and it can go horribly wrong. > > It will if you don't reject using const. > OK, so make the function median, and specify that it may reorder the input. Now the problem can't be solved by a const. It's a genuine issue, but it's similar to the problem that const was designed to solve - it's a micro-niggle, it means that, annoyingly, your program may malfunction on the first test. But a bug whereby you mix up the input and output buffers, or pass a pointer to a single where the function expects an array, isn't likely to remain undetected for long. It's not really worth adding a special int & type syntax to C to create pointers to single elements, the confusion and danger doesn't go deep enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web