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 4 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 20 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 21:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <not8so$iji$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92319 |
On 15/08/2016 21:32, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> The best I could do would be to take a conventional array/pointer type >> model WHERE THE TWO ARE DISTINCT, > > Arrays and pointer types are distinct. This is where any argument becomes futile. If I say, why can I do p[i], normally associated with arrays, when p is a pointer? You will say, ah but p[i] means *(p+i). If I say, why can I do *A, normally associated with pointers, when A is an array? You will say, ah but A decays to a pointer! If I have A[i] and B[i], of which one of A or B is an array, and the other is a pointer, it's impossible to tell which is which. They are apparently interchangeable. No matter how I approach it, whatever I try and do with an array or a pointer ends up converging to the same thing, yet you will persist in saying the two are distinct! I just can't win. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1t1pog5y.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92320 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 15/08/2016 21:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> The best I could do would be to take a conventional array/pointer type
>>> model WHERE THE TWO ARE DISTINCT,
>>
>> Arrays and pointer types are distinct.
>
> This is where any argument becomes futile.
Ok, let's try this. Do you understand the difference between an
*array object* and a *pointer object*? Leave aside for now what
operations you can perform on them, and the semantics of those
operations.
To make it concrete, consider these two definitions. Let's say
they're at file scope.
int arr[10];
int *ptr;
Considering them *only as objects* (regions of storage able to hold
values), do you understand what they are and how they're different?
How much space do they take up in memory?
[...]
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <notcof$voo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92321 |
On 15/08/2016 22:50, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 15/08/2016 21:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>>> The best I could do would be to take a conventional array/pointer type
>>>> model WHERE THE TWO ARE DISTINCT,
>>>
>>> Arrays and pointer types are distinct.
>>
>> This is where any argument becomes futile.
>
> Ok, let's try this. Do you understand the difference between an
> *array object* and a *pointer object*? Leave aside for now what
> operations you can perform on them, and the semantics of those
> operations.
>
> To make it concrete, consider these two definitions. Let's say
> they're at file scope.
>
> int arr[10];
> int *ptr;
>
> Considering them *only as objects* (regions of storage able to hold
> values), do you understand what they are and how they're different?
Yes. But what about this:
void fn(int arr[10]);
This looks exactly the same type as your example. But how much space
does such a type take up here?
And you can't get away from doing manipulations with these types which
is where it starts to go downhill.
Algorithms tend to concern themselves with expressions and statements;
not declarations which are just a necessary detail (and that some of us
like to tuck out of the way).
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnwpjhmy7a.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92323 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 15/08/2016 22:50, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 15/08/2016 21:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> The best I could do would be to take a conventional array/pointer type
>>>>> model WHERE THE TWO ARE DISTINCT,
>>>>
>>>> Arrays and pointer types are distinct.
>>>
>>> This is where any argument becomes futile.
>>
>> Ok, let's try this. Do you understand the difference between an
>> *array object* and a *pointer object*? Leave aside for now what
>> operations you can perform on them, and the semantics of those
>> operations.
>>
>> To make it concrete, consider these two definitions. Let's say
>> they're at file scope.
>>
>> int arr[10];
>> int *ptr;
>>
>> Considering them *only as objects* (regions of storage able to hold
>> values), do you understand what they are and how they're different?
>
> Yes. But
[SNIP]
You've said you find this very confusing. Taking you at your word,
I'm beginning an attempt to explain it, starting with a simple and
straightforward example. If you're going to immediately, after just
one word of acknowledgement, into examples designed to confuse the
issue, examples we've all seen before, this isn't going to work.
Are you interested in learning how arrays work in C or not? If you
are, we can continue (and I'll ask you to answer the questions I
asked with more than just "Yes").
If not, I'll ask you to stop trying to explain to others things that
you don't understand yourself.
Which will it be?
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 00:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <notjf6$lqo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92324 |
On 16/08/2016 00:03, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> Yes. But > [SNIP] > > You've said you find this very confusing. Taking you at your word, > I'm beginning an attempt to explain it, starting with a simple and > straightforward example. If you're going to immediately, after just > one word of acknowledgement, into examples designed to confuse the > issue, examples we've all seen before, this isn't going to work. > > Are you interested in learning how arrays work in C or not? I know how they work, more or less. But I don't think much of C's array/pointer model, as you might have guessed. There are simpler schemes of doing this at this level of language, ones which don't require them to be so much entwined. (Some languages have arrays, but no pointers, for example.) So you're not going to convince me that arrays and pointers in C have hardly anything to do with each other. You gave me what you thought was a cast-iron example of an array declaration, and I gave the exact same example back in a context where it was a pointer! If you want an example of a language where these two type categories are REALLY distinct, and strictly enforced, then I suggest one of mine (or Pascal as something that can be looked up). But C isn't one of those. If I said that arrays and pointers in C are the same, then perhaps that wasn't exactly right, but within the context of that example, then yes they were were treated interchangeably. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnshu5msy1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92325 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 16/08/2016 00:03, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> Yes. But
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> You've said you find this very confusing. Taking you at your word,
>> I'm beginning an attempt to explain it, starting with a simple and
>> straightforward example. If you're going to immediately, after just
>> one word of acknowledgement, into examples designed to confuse the
>> issue, examples we've all seen before, this isn't going to work.
>>
>> Are you interested in learning how arrays work in C or not?
>
> I know how they work, more or less.
No, you don't, not if you think arrays and pointers are the same thing.
> But I don't think much of C's
> array/pointer model, as you might have guessed. There are simpler
> schemes of doing this at this level of language, ones which don't
> require them to be so much entwined. (Some languages have arrays, but no
> pointers, for example.)
How is that relevant? As I've said before, I don't particularly *like*
C's array-pointer model either.
Whether you like the model or not, are you interested in understanding
it? If so, are you willing to cooperate with me in explaining the
model? That means not running off and introducing examples that you
think prove that C's treatment of arrays and pointers sucks. It means
trying to understand examples that I present on their own terms before
moving on to the next step.
> So you're not going to convince me that arrays and pointers in C have
> hardly anything to do with each other.
Good, because I've never said that. They have a lot to do with each
other. What I've actually said is that they are not the same thing.
> You gave me what you thought was a cast-iron example of an array
> declaration, and I gave the exact same example back in a context where
> it was a pointer!
That's why I described the context in which the array definition
occurs. We already know that the same syntax in a different
context has a different meaning. I wasn't talking about that
different context. If we try to cover everything simultaneously,
we'll never get anywhere.
> If you want an example of a language where these two type categories are
> REALLY distinct, and strictly enforced, then I suggest one of mine (or
> Pascal as something that can be looked up). But C isn't one of those.
If we want to talk about some other language, we should do it elsewhere.
I know Pascal reasonably well (at least one or two dialects of it), and
I understand that it treats arrays and pointers differently than C does.
If you want to say that Pascal is better than C in that area, I won't
argue. That's not what this is about.
> If I said that arrays and pointers in C are the same, then perhaps that
> wasn't exactly right,
Then we've made some progress ...
> but within the context of that example, then yes
> they were were treated interchangeably.
... but not much.
Please stop moving the goalposts.
Are you willing to work with me on this? Yes or no.
If not, are you willing to acknowledge that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
C ARRAYS AND POINTERS, and stop trying to teach others based on
your misunderstandings?
My goal here is that you will understand C's treatment arrays and
pointers better than you currently seem to. I don't expect you
to *like* that treatment, just understand that is C's type system,
warts and all.
Failing that, I'd like to persuade you to stop spreading confusion
and misinformation, so that I don't need to spend my time correcting
your misstatements.
What do you say?
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 01:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <notmod$u3t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92326 |
On 16/08/2016 01:57, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> If I said that arrays and pointers in C are the same, then perhaps that >> wasn't exactly right, > > Then we've made some progress ... > >> but within the context of that example, then yes >> they were were treated interchangeably. > > ... but not much. > > Please stop moving the goalposts. Nevertheless that's what you first picked up on. That was the title of the section where I demonstrated that C DOESN'T CARE whether a term is an array or not. That is just incredibly sloppy. If the language lets me write: *A // when A is an array and: p[i] // when p is a pointer (forgetting i[p]...) then there is nothing more to say. While these are easy to spot, only slightly more elaborate examples can lead to hard-to-detect bugs that the language is not going to help with. No amount of understanding is going to make that behaviour acceptable to me. (And you're still eerily posting from one hour in the future!) -- bartc > Are you willing to work with me on this? Yes or no. > > If not, are you willing to acknowledge that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND > C ARRAYS AND POINTERS, and stop trying to teach others based on > your misunderstandings? > > My goal here is that you will understand C's treatment arrays and > pointers better than you currently seem to. I don't expect you > to *like* that treatment, just understand that is C's type system, > warts and all. > > Failing that, I'd like to persuade you to stop spreading confusion > and misinformation, so that I don't need to spend my time correcting > your misstatements. > > What do you say? >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoa4tmpg1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92327 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 16/08/2016 01:57, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> If I said that arrays and pointers in C are the same, then perhaps that
>>> wasn't exactly right,
>>
>> Then we've made some progress ...
>>
>>> but within the context of that example, then yes
>>> they were were treated interchangeably.
>>
>> ... but not much.
>>
>> Please stop moving the goalposts.
>
> Nevertheless that's what you first picked up on. That was the title of
> the section where I demonstrated that C DOESN'T CARE whether a term is
> an array or not. That is just incredibly sloppy.
>
> If the language lets me write:
>
> *A // when A is an array
>
> and:
>
> p[i] // when p is a pointer (forgetting i[p]...)
>
> then there is nothing more to say. While these are easy to spot, only
> slightly more elaborate examples can lead to hard-to-detect bugs that
> the language is not going to help with.
>
> No amount of understanding is going to make that behaviour acceptable to
> me.
Well I'm afraid that's just too bad.
Again, this isn't about whether you *accept* it or not. I am
offering to help you *understand* it. You currently do not (and,
please correct me if I'm mistaken, you seem oddly proud of that).
Imagine that I'm teaching you how to use a computer keyboard.
We start with the basics: when you press a letter key, that letter
appears on the display. Type 'a', and an 'a' appears. What you've
been doing is the equivalent of interrupting the lesson to point out
that if you type 'a' while holding down the Control key, something
else happens, and the keyboard obviously doesn't care whether you
pressed the 'a' key or not, and you just won't accept it because
it's so confusing, and the people who designed that keyboard must
have been *insane*! If you would calm down and accept that that's a
more advanced topic and that we'll get to it eventually, you might
learn something.
I'm sorry if that sounds condescending, but I'm not sure how to
say what I'm trying to say without sounding that way.
If you wish to continue not understanding how C arrays and pointers
work, that's your decision. I merely ask that you refrain from
passing on your confusion and misunderstandings to others.
Realistically, I expect that you'll continue to post incorrect
information. I'll continue to correct it, but I will no longer
attempt to help you understand.
Unless you change your mind and ask me to.
> (And you're still eerily posting from one hour in the future!)
Yeah, I don't own the computer I'm posting from. I've already let
the owner know. (Either that, or I'm a Time Lord.)
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nouo9p$f7o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92328 |
On 16/08/2016 03:13, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> If the language lets me write:
>>
>> *A // when A is an array
>>
>> and:
>>
>> p[i] // when p is a pointer (forgetting i[p]...)
>>
>> then there is nothing more to say.
> Realistically, I expect that you'll continue to post incorrect
> information.
What's incorrect about the examples above? They're just facts. For
someone trying to get a job done, it's just yet another thing to be
aware of. This was the point of my document. Maybe I should have called
it C Pitfalls.
In C: In one of mine:
int A[10]; [10]int A
int* p; ref int p
int (*B)[10]; ref[10]int B
int C[10][5]; [10,5]int C
int **D; ref ref int D
int i, j; int i, j
printf("%d", A[i]); //OK print A[i] # OK
printf("%d", *A); //OK? print A^ # Error, not a pointer
printf("%d", *p); //OK print p^ # OK
printf("%d", p[i]); //OK? print p[i] # Error, not array
printf("%d", B[i]); //OK? print B[i] # Error, not array
printf("%d", (*B)[i]); //OK print B^[i] # OK
printf("%d", *(B[i])); //OK? print B[i]^ # Error, not array
printf("%d", **B); //OK? print B^^ # Error, B^ not ptr
printf("%d", C); //OK? print C # (Print array)
printf("%d", C[i][j]); //OK print C[i,j] # OK
printf("%d", j[i[C]]); //OK? print j[i[C]]# Error, C not int
printf("%d", (*C)[i]); //OK? print C^[i] # Error, not ptr
printf("%d", *C[i]); //OK? print C[i]^ # Error, C[i] not ptr
printf("%d", **C); //OK? print C^^ # Error, not ptr
printf("%d", D[i][j]); //OK? print D[i,j] # Error, not ptr
I suspect most would prefer the behaviour demonstrated in the right-hand
column, if they are coding. And also if they have to explain what's
going in.
There seems to be a giant elephant in the room illustrated by the
results in that left column. But apparently it's OK if someone
understands what the elephant is doing?
I doubt we're going to agree on this.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk2fgn2vv.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92329 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 16/08/2016 03:13, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> If the language lets me write:
>>>
>>> *A // when A is an array
>>>
>>> and:
>>>
>>> p[i] // when p is a pointer (forgetting i[p]...)
>>>
>>> then there is nothing more to say.
>
>> Realistically, I expect that you'll continue to post incorrect
>> information.
>
> What's incorrect about the examples above? They're just facts. For
> someone trying to get a job done, it's just yet another thing to be
> aware of. This was the point of my document. Maybe I should have called
> it C Pitfalls.
I never said the examples were incorrect. Your claim that
arrays and pointers are the same thing is blatantly incorrect.
Your statements about the circumstances in which array expressions
are converted to pointers are guesswork, and frequently incorrect.
And you refuse to learn.
[...]
> There seems to be a giant elephant in the room illustrated by the
> results in that left column. But apparently it's OK if someone
> understands what the elephant is doing?
We all know about the elephant. The rest of us are willing to
understand it. You refuse to even try.
> I doubt we're going to agree on this.
--
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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32200248-5fcf-4347-b3f2-4940c05f9836@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92333 |
W dniu wtorek, 16 sierpnia 2016 16:20:52 UTC+2 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > On 16/08/2016 03:13, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> If the language lets me write: > >>> > >>> *A // when A is an array > >>> > >>> and: > >>> > >>> p[i] // when p is a pointer (forgetting i[p]...) > >>> > >>> then there is nothing more to say. > > > >> Realistically, I expect that you'll continue to post incorrect > >> information. > > > > What's incorrect about the examples above? They're just facts. For > > someone trying to get a job done, it's just yet another thing to be > > aware of. This was the point of my document. Maybe I should have called > > it C Pitfalls. > > I never said the examples were incorrect. Your claim that > arrays and pointers are the same thing is blatantly incorrect. > Your statements about the circumstances in which array expressions > are converted to pointers are guesswork, and frequently incorrect. > And you refuse to learn. > > [...] > > > There seems to be a giant elephant in the room illustrated by the > > results in that left column. But apparently it's OK if someone > > understands what the elephant is doing? > > We all know about the elephant. The rest of us are willing to > understand it. You refuse to even try. > THE REST OF KEITHS? I HOPE THIS IS A MANIACAL VISION OF ONE KEITH AND HE REALLY NOT MULTIPLICATES > > I doubt we're going to agree on this. > > -- > 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 | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4628cd2d-9333-4be6-943a-eb593c5c4c12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92333 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:20:52 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Your claim that > arrays and pointers are the same thing is blatantly incorrect. The sentence "C arrays and pointers are the same thing" is incorrect in fine details. The sentence "C arrays and pointers have nothing in common" is blatantly incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 10:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e57f7e82-4ec1-450c-9023-07e39be36240@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92335 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-4, already...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:20:52 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote: > > > > Your claim that > > arrays and pointers are the same thing is blatantly incorrect. > > The sentence "C arrays and pointers are the same thing" is incorrect > in fine details. True, but it's also incorrect in many of the gross features, such as the amount of memory required to store them, modifiability, and addressability. > The sentence "C arrays and pointers have nothing in common" is > blatantly incorrect. True, but it is also a sentence that no one has even come close to suggesting is correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfuq4msds.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92335 |
already5chosen@yahoo.com writes:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:20:52 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Your claim that
>> arrays and pointers are the same thing is blatantly incorrect.
>
> The sentence "C arrays and pointers are the same thing" is incorrect
> in fine details.
It is incorrect in both fine details and overall concept.
> The sentence "C arrays and pointers have nothing in common" is
> blatantly incorrect.
Yes, it is. So what? I'm not aware that anyone has made such a
statement (though some have reacted *as if* somebody had made such
a statement).
--
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 | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c54e0e1-74f5-42d2-856b-7854a21028fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92337 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 1:06:20 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > already5chosen writes: > > The sentence "C arrays and pointers are the same thing" is incorrect > > in fine details. > > It is incorrect in both fine details and overall concept. Is there any difference between array-type rvalues and pointer-type rvalues? Array-type lvalues behave nothing like pointer-type lvalues, but as far as I can tell, the result of an rvalue conversion on an array is a pointer to the first element.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnbn0smnp1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92338 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 1:06:20 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> already5chosen writes:
>> > The sentence "C arrays and pointers are the same thing" is incorrect
>> > in fine details.
>>
>> It is incorrect in both fine details and overall concept.
>
> Is there any difference between array-type rvalues and pointer-type rvalues?
Please (re-)read N1570 6.3.2.1.
The C standard doesn't use the term "rvalue" except in one footnote,
in 6.3.2.1. After explaining the meaning of "lvalue", it says:
What is sometimes called "rvalue" is in this International Standard
described as the "value of an expression".
> Array-type lvalues behave nothing like pointer-type lvalues, but as far as
> I can tell, the result of an rvalue conversion on an array is a pointer to
> the first element.
What do you mean by "rvalue conversion"? If you're referring to "lvalue
conversion", a term defined in 6.3.2.1p2, it doesn't apply to
expressions of array type.
Of course an expression of array type is, in most contexts, implicitly
converted to a pointer to its first element.
I just noticed something odd (and perhaps slightly sloppy) about the
wording that specifies that conversion (6.3.2.1p3):
Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator, the
_Alignof operator, or the unary & operator, or is a string
literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has
type "array of type" is converted to an expression with type
"pointer to type" that points to the initial element of the
array object and is not an lvalue.
Normally a "conversion" is applied to a value (the result of
evaluating an expression), yielding another value. Here the standard
says that an *expression* is "converted" (to an expression with a
different type). So it's not the kind of conversion that might be
specified by a cast operator.
This conversion takes place at compile time, and is conceptually similar
to the way a parameter of array type is "adjusted" become a parameter of
pointer type (N1570 6.3.7.3p7).
Which means, I think, that given:
int arr[10];
int *ptr = arr;
the expression `arr` *is* of type `int*`, because of this "conversion"
(adjustment?) that takes place at compile time.
The other way to look at it (and the way I thought of it before now)
is that `arr` is of type `int[10]`, and that `int[10]` (l)value is
implicitly converted to `int*` -- but given the way 6.3.2.1 talks
about converting *expressions* rather than *values* I don't think
that interpretation holds up.
The final result is the same. The only difference is in the abstract
conceptual underpinnings that lead to that result.
--
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 | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 13:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <584e1695-e693-414c-8f79-0cda57282c14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92340 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
> What is sometimes called "rvalue" is in this International Standard
> described as the "value of an expression".
The Standard may have chosen to ignore the term "rvalue", but it describes
a concept which cannot I think be accurately summed up in the phrase used
by the Standard, though perhaps "evaluated value of an expression" might be
appropriate.
int myArray[3] = {1,2,3};
char *p = (char*)&(myArray[1]);
upon what does the operator "&" act? From what I can tell, it acts upon
the expression "myArray[5]". Does that expression have a value? I would
say that it does--the value is 2. Does that mean that the expression is
an rvalue? Not as other documents use the term, because it isn't evaluated.
On the other hand, rather than use the phrase "evaluated value of an
expression" all the time, it might be easier to simply define the term
"rvalue" once and then use that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 21:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <novu6l$jge$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92343 |
On 16/08/2016 21:14, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> What is sometimes called "rvalue" is in this International Standard
>> described as the "value of an expression".
>
> The Standard may have chosen to ignore the term "rvalue", but it describes
> a concept which cannot I think be accurately summed up in the phrase used
> by the Standard, though perhaps "evaluated value of an expression" might be
> appropriate.
>
> int myArray[3] = {1,2,3};
> char *p = (char*)&(myArray[1]);
>
> upon what does the operator "&" act? From what I can tell, it acts upon
> the expression "myArray[5]". Does that expression have a value? I would
> say that it does--the value is 2. Does that mean that the expression is
> an rvalue? Not as other documents use the term, because it isn't evaluated.
> On the other hand, rather than use the phrase "evaluated value of an
> expression" all the time, it might be easier to simply define the term
> "rvalue" once and then use that.
Assuming you mean myArray[1]...
myArray[1], as everyone keeps telling me, is really *(myArray+1) (where
myArray is treated as &myArray[0], but that would involve us in a
circular definition so I won't go there...)
And &myarray[1] would then be &*(myArray+1).
You would expect then the & and * to cancel each other out to result in
(myArray+1). So no evaluation takes place of the element. Only of its
address.
This means you can't take a sub-expression in isolation and assume it
will be evaluated; it depends on the local context.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59af6b86-eb43-4a78-af36-381e3872ebd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92346 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 3:48:29 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
> Assuming you mean myArray[1]...
Yeah, I had started with an array of 10, and then wanted to initialize
it to show that it had a value but didn't want to clutter the post with
more initializer values than would be needed to make the point.
> myArray[1], as everyone keeps telling me, is really *(myArray+1) (where
> myArray is treated as &myArray[0], but that would involve us in a
> circular definition so I won't go there...)
>
> And &myarray[1] would then be &*(myArray+1).
>
> You would expect then the & and * to cancel each other out to result in
> (myArray+1). So no evaluation takes place of the element. Only of its
> address.
Indeed. The expression isn't evaluated until the compiler can see whether
it will be used in a way requiring an lvalue or in a way that requires what
other documents call an "rvalue". In this context, "&" requires an lvalue
so the expression isn't evaluated.
> This means you can't take a sub-expression in isolation and assume it
> will be evaluated; it depends on the local context.
BTW, things get interesting with regard to constructs like:
#include <stdint.h>
typedef union { uint16_t h[8]; uint32_t w[4]; } ua;
uint32_t test1(ua *u1, ua *u2, int index)
{
u1->w[0] = 1;
u2->h[index] = 5;
return u1->w[0];
}
While gcc recognizes the accesses to u1->w[0] and u2->h[0] as being
performed via the union type, clang does not. While clang's behavior
may be defensible by the wording of the Standard, I would regard it as
being rather unhelpful since I can't see much more that could be done
to let the compiler know that the array accesses are being performed
through the same union type and should thus be presumed capable of
aliasing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln37m4mk0q.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92343 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> What is sometimes called "rvalue" is in this International Standard
>> described as the "value of an expression".
>
> The Standard may have chosen to ignore the term "rvalue", but it describes
> a concept which cannot I think be accurately summed up in the phrase used
> by the Standard, though perhaps "evaluated value of an expression" might be
> appropriate.
>
> int myArray[3] = {1,2,3};
> char *p = (char*)&(myArray[1]);
>
> upon what does the operator "&" act? From what I can tell, it acts upon
> the expression "myArray[5]". Does that expression have a value? I would
> say that it does--the value is 2. Does that mean that the expression is
> an rvalue? Not as other documents use the term, because it isn't evaluated.
> On the other hand, rather than use the phrase "evaluated value of an
> expression" all the time, it might be easier to simply define the term
> "rvalue" once and then use that.
The way C uses the term (again, only in a footnote), an "rvalue"
cannot be an expression. An "rvalue" is a *value* that results,
at run time, from evaluating an expression.
On the other hand, an "lvalue" as defined by the C standard is a
kind of expression. (This is, as I understand it, different
from the original meaning of the term.)
In `&(myArray[1])`, the `&` operator is applied to the expression
`(myArray[1])`, which is an lvalue. The value contained in
`myArray[1]` (which happens to be 2) is not relevant, since no
*lvalue conversion* takes place.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
--
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]
Page 4 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web