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 14 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 20 Next page →
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9283b112-8250-4e0b-b149-6ca728a3200b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92397 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
> On 17/08/2016 19:51, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> > <snip>
> >> [...] But I'm talking about the normal case where a pointer has the
> >> correct value. One example was:
> >>
> >> int (*B)[10]; // pointer to array 10 of int
> >>
> >> This, when properly initialised, is clearly going to point to one
> >> object.
> >
> > Not at all. This is a standard idiom for allocating 2D arrays
> > dynamically:
> >
> > int (*B)[10] = malloc(100 * sizeof *B);
>
> Cdecl tells me (I knew this one but needed to double check) that
> int(*B)[10] is a pointer to array. One array, not two.
True, but it's perfectly legal for B to point to the first sub-array in an
array of arrays. If so, B+1 will point at the next sub-array, and B+2 will
point at the next one after that, etc. As long as the series is long enough,
B[i][j] will access an element of one of the sub-arrays in that array.
> A pointer to a 2D 'flat' array of compile-time bounds would be:
>
> int (*C)[10][20]; // or [][20]; ptr to array of array
True, but if I write:
int A[5][10][20];
C = A + 2;
Then C[2][4][8] will be equivalent to A[4][4][8].
> A pointer to a 2D array implemented with Iliffe vectors would be
>
> int (*(*C)[])[]; // pointer to array of ptr to array
>
> IMO what you're doing with the above is abusing the language.
C was designed with deliberate intention of allowing such "abuse". It has no alternative syntax for doing what that code does, and what that code does is something that does sometimes need to be done.
> If you
> need an array, that declare it as an array, not a ambiguous pointer, and
> do everyone reading your code a favour.
If I use an array rather than a pointer, then I'm going to have to copy from the place I wanted the pointer to point at before using the array, and I'll have to copy it back from the array to the place I wanted it to point at before using that other place. That seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to just to satisfy your prejudices about how such things should be done.
> >> But I can write:
> >>
> >> B[77] or *(B+77)
> >>
> >> without any comeback from the language.
> >
> > Just as well. The pattern exactly mirrors the pattern used for all
> > dynamic arrays.
>
> Well, that pattern is adversely affecting the readability of the
> language and ability to detect a whole class of errors.
>
> My language is at the same level as C. But it has first-class arrays and
> doesn't share C's aversion to evaluating them.
>
> It can do what C does but doesn't have all these issues. B[77] would be
> an error. *(B+77) wouldn't work at all.
>
> An actual 2D dynamic array would need to be declared appropriately and
> accessed accordingly with exactly the right deref and index ops. The
> result is that it is perfectly clear what is going on and there is no
> ambiguity.
>
> Your comments illustrate perfectly what is wrong with C; I declare:
>
> int (*B)[10];
>
> to mean a pointer to a dynamically allocated 1D array. Then you come
> along and say it can also be used for a dynamic 2D array!
>
> So, which is it? 1D, 2D or both?
2D, with the option for the first dimension to be 1, which is (by explicit
definition in the C language, equivalent o a single object of the array's
element type). If you want a dynamically allocated 1D array, use "int *B;", and
set it to point at the first element of that array.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 21:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <np2iei$frm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92402 |
On 17/08/2016 21:33, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >> I declare: >> >> int (*B)[10]; >> >> to mean a pointer to a dynamically allocated 1D array. Then you come >> along and say it can also be used for a dynamic 2D array! >> >> So, which is it? 1D, 2D or both? > > 2D, with the option for the first dimension to be 1, which is (by explicit > definition in the C language, equivalent o a single object of the array's > element type). If you want a dynamically allocated 1D array, use "int *B;", and > set it to point at the first element of that array. So to get an array, I need to declare something that doesn't involve an array, and which furthermore is indistinguishable from a pointer to a arbitrary, standalone int value? Yet C is perfectly capable of doing it properly: declare int (*B)[]. Why am I not surprised that C is difficult to learn when everyone is doing things backwards! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 15:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07faa95e-2470-4375-93e9-15e79ee4e0e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92404 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 9:46:18 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > On 17/08/2016 21:33, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > > So to get an array, I need to declare something that doesn't involve an > array, and which furthermore is indistinguishable from a pointer to a > arbitrary, standalone int value? > To get an array you need to obtain a buffer, then put data into it. The data is then your array, it's an array of data, not of memory elements. Just as an array of soldiers is the men, not the spaces on the parade ground they occupy. The C standard misuses the term array to include buffers, which is one source of confusion. Then it is a little glitch that a pointer to a datum and a pointer to a buffer are not distinguished, but of course normally they will resolve to the same machine operations. It works reasonably well. The STL vector doesn't allow uninitalised values, and it is tagged with the size. It's a better array. But it's also a higher level object. The C array resolves to a single address register and some integer registers, at most two, one for N and one for capacity, but often the size parameters can be shared or assumed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 23:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <np2pk0$9lm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92415 |
On 17/08/2016 23:37, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 9:46:18 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> On 17/08/2016 21:33, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> >> So to get an array, I need to declare something that doesn't involve an >> array, and which furthermore is indistinguishable from a pointer to a >> arbitrary, standalone int value? >> > To get an array you need to obtain a buffer, then put data into it. > The data is then your array, it's an array of data, not of memory > elements. Just as an array of soldiers is the men, not the > spaces on the parade ground they occupy. > > The C standard misuses the term array to include buffers, which is > one source of confusion. Then it is a little glitch that a pointer > to a datum and a pointer to a buffer are not distinguished, but of > course normally they will resolve to the same machine operations. > 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! -- bartc The STL vector doesn't allow uninitalised > values, and it is tagged with the size. It's a better array. But > it's also a higher level object. The C array resolves to a single > address register and some integer registers, at most two, one > for N and one for capacity, but often the size parameters can be > shared or assumed. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55578778-4482-458e-b43d-b763732c0054@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92417 |
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, 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.
double *x = malloc(100 * sizeof(double));
creates the same buffer, on the heap. You can and often should
toggle between the two methods, depending on whether 100 is a
maximum or a known size, whether you will ever need to scale up
to N > 100, whether stack space is precious or not.
for(i=0;i<100;i++)
x[i] = i + 1.0;
now we've initialised to buffer to 100 values, which happen
to be integers from 1 to 100. More likely we would get them
from an external source. So now the buffer has become an array.
N = sizeof(x)/sizeof(*x); // bad
don't use this sort of construct. It will break if you toggle
between stack and heap, if you parameterise x, or if in some
situations you need extra values in x.
Write N=100, reserve N for array size, and use "capacity" for
buffer size. Never use size_t except for a buffer capacity in
amounts of memory.
2D arrays are hopelessly broken in C. Always use a flat array
and pass width, height, maybe stride, except maybe for a chess
board or a 4x4 transform matrix or something like that, where
dimensions are small and can never change.
Most work on arrays will be done in subroutines, which take
pointers.
double mean(double *x, int 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
in the olden days, travelling pointers would sometimes compile
to more efficient machine code, but that time is long gone.
Reserve the * dereference syntax for when the pointer points
to an individual datum
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];
}
}
the expressions are a bit of a nuisance, but far less grief
than messing about with trying to set up 2D arrays.
Some people use this style.
int mean(double *x, int N, double *xbar)
the function always returns 0 except on failure (N <= 0), and
every function returns a similar error flag. So the results have
to be returned through pointers.
Now of course you can write
err = mean(&xbar, 100, array)
the compiler won't warn and it can go horribly wrong. But whilst
that's an irritation, the bug is most unlikely to persist beyond
the first informal test run.
Obey these simple rules, and everything works nicely, consistently,
and reasonably conventionally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 18:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd1l6khps.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92424 |
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.
--
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 | 2016-08-17 17:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff28d027-d19e-4e2e-871e-bb415253c0da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92427 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <544662e4-3b7c-468a-ab98-d79f636eb4da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92434 |
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 7:07:33 PM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: > 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. In most implementations, a declaration "unsigned char x[100];" at block scope will allocate space for 100 storage slots of type "unsigned char ". The storage slots will usually exist from the beginning for the array's lifetime until the end thereof, though authors of the Standard left ambiguous the question of whether the slots are required to exist. Since unsigned char is forbidden from having any trap representations, an attempt to read an element of the array must yield a valid unsigned char value, but the authors of the Standard declined to require that multiple reads to the same uninitialized location yield the same value. I'm somewhat curious in what cases that level of freedom would actually allow for useful optimizations that would otherwise be unavailable, versus forcing programmers to zero out storage even in cases where any stable value would have been acceptable, but someone apparently thinks it's useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 19:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnzioaj012.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92434 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> 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".
That's not how C defines the word "array". You can't take reasonably
the meanings of common English words and use them to make assertions
about what those words mean in the context of C.
> 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.
It's an array *object* consisting of 100 *objects* of type double,
regardless of their values. Whether something is an array object
or not does not depend on whether its elements have been initialized.
If each element contains a trap representation, it's still an array
object of type `double[100]`.
--
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 | 2016-08-17 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7827ea6f-7c56-4f96-a4b5-82ea47064b14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92440 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:48:21 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > It's an array *object* consisting of 100 *objects* of type double, > regardless of their values. Whether something is an array object > or not does not depend on whether its elements have been initialized. > If each element contains a trap representation, it's still an array > object of type `double[100]`. > 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. The system I have outlined is perfectly simple, usable, and keeps everything nice and clear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn7favprt0.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #92442 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:48:21 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> It's an array *object* consisting of 100 *objects* of type double, >> regardless of their values. Whether something is an array object >> or not does not depend on whether its elements have been initialized. >> If each element contains a trap representation, it's still an array >> object of type `double[100]`. > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4748638e-0581-4318-9c05-74e2b292dc73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #93058 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lntwdz9zpf.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #93062 |
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.
Malcolm, we don't object to the way you separate the concepts.
We object to your deliberate misuse of the word "array" to mean
something other than what C calls an "array".
And I've never heard anyone other than you use the word "array"
in the same way you do, so without at least a few citations from
reputable sources I cannot take your usage seriously. Consider this
a challenge.
Your C++ example does not support your point; quite the contrary.
For a "vector" (note: the word "array" is neither used nor misused
in this context), there seems to be a distinction between the space
that's allocated and the space that's currently used. And that's
a perfectly valid distinction. (There's also a std::array class,
added to C++ relatively recently, but let's ignore that.)
Of course C++ has arrays (and pointers, and the idiosyncratic
relationship between them) in almost exactly the same way C does.
In both C and C++, an array *object* (again, using "array" as an
adjective) is an array object of some defined size, regardless of
how many of its elements happen to have been initialized. There can
certainly be an application-specific distinction between the size of
an array and the number of its elements that have meaningful values
(the length of a string vs. the size of the array object containing
the string is perhaps the most common example). The rest of us don't
generally have any trouble keeping those two concepts straight --
until you jump in and try to tell us that everyone in the world
other than you has been using the word "array" incorrectly.
Malcolm, does it ever occur to you that you might possibly be wrong?
--
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 | Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c71175b-4b04-4dd6-9d6e-d161b475a524@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #93068 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:22:38 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > Of course C++ has arrays (and pointers, and the idiosyncratic > relationship between them) in almost exactly the same way C does. > Could you elaborate on your qualifying your statement with "almost"? In what ways are the relationship between an array and a pointer different in C++ than C? Did you have VLAs (and the ensuing sizeof evaluations) in mind? thank you, - Anand
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr38s7m4x.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #93337 |
Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:22:38 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Of course C++ has arrays (and pointers, and the idiosyncratic
>> relationship between them) in almost exactly the same way C does.
>
> Could you elaborate on your qualifying your statement with "almost"?
> In what ways are the relationship between an array and a pointer
> different in C++ than C? Did you have VLAs (and the ensuing sizeof
> evaluations) in mind?
I didn't really have anything specific in mind. I was mostly trying to
avoid making a blanket statement.
Yes, VLAs are one difference. C++ references might be another,
depending on how you look at it. And I think C++ has more cases where
array expressions are not converted to pointer expressions than C has.
--
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 | Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dba373aa-0121-49c3-9ab5-8d2538ea2f94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #93340 |
[Rearranged] On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > Anand Hariharan writes: > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:22:38 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Of course C++ has arrays (and pointers, and the idiosyncratic > >> relationship between them) in almost exactly the same way C does. > > > > Could you elaborate on your qualifying your statement with "almost"? > > In what ways are the relationship between an array and a pointer > > different in C++ than C? Did you have VLAs (and the ensuing sizeof > > evaluations) in mind? > > Yes, VLAs are one difference. C++ references might be another, > depending on how you look at it. And I think C++ has more cases where > array expressions are not converted to pointer expressions than C has. > Thank you. > I didn't really have anything specific in mind. I was mostly trying to > avoid making a blanket statement. > > -- > Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> > "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." > -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" Was reminded of this: <copy-paste from IMDB> James Hacker: The department prepared this. "No loss of amenity" it says. Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, Minister, not no loss of amenity; no *significant* loss of amenity. James Hacker: Well, same thing. Sir Humphrey Appleby: On the contrary, there is all the difference in the world. Almost anything can be attacked as a loss of amenity, and almost anything can be defended as not a significant loss of amenity, which seems to signify that one should appreciate the significance of significant. </copy-paste>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnzinnmit5.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #93062 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f02db6cb-a55b-4c81-9cb1-a41e10abc4d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #93196 |
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. Which doesn't refute the suggestion that they are "nutty" - that's technically the argument from authority or ad numerum, which is how could could have come back if so inclined. But how the reply wasn't relevant I don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 01:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1t0yagjj.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| 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:
[...]
>> >> 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.
[...]
>> This has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Tim, I think you missed the point Malcolm was making. He's still
wrong, but I think there was a point.
A C++ std::vector distinguishes between the size (the number of
elements that currently have a value) and the capacity (the number
of elements that could be held in currently allocated storage).
(In fact its has member functions with those names.) That's at
least vaguely similar to the distinction Malcolm makes between a
"buffer" (what the rest of us call an array object) and an "array"
(what the rest of us call the subset of an array object to which
valid values have been assigned).
> My "nutty ideas" are shared by C++ community.
I do not believe that. Your previous article about C++ vectors
did not support that in any way. It's true that C++ vectors make a
distinction that's similar to the distinction between what you call
"arrays" and what you call "buffers". But neither C++ nor, as far
as I know, the C++ community uses the words "array" and "buffer"
in the way you do.
I don't think anybody is saying that the distinction you're making is
not valid, or that it's not important. We're saying that your use
of the word "array" is incorrect. It is inconsistent with the way
the C standard uses the word, and I have never encountered anyone
other than you who uses the word "array" in the same way you do.
By using your own idiosyncratic definition of the word "array", you are
doing nothing but cause confusion.
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".
> Which doesn't refute the suggestion that they are "nutty" - that's
> technically the argument from authority or ad numerum, which is how
> could could have come back if so inclined.
>
> But how the reply wasn't relevant I don't know.
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 06:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnoa3ulg10.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #93216 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > 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: > > [...] > >>>>> 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. > > [...] > >>> This has nothing to do with what I was saying. > > Tim, I think you missed the point Malcolm was making. > [.. summary of what his point was ..] Oh, I understood the point he was making. It just didn't have anything to do with what I was saying, which is about (and only about) how "array" and "buffer" are normally used in the programming and computer science communities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web