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 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 11:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87vaz7eg7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #92116 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/08/2016 01:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/08/2016 20:57, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/08/2016 01:12, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could someone explain (compiler and/or assembly level) differences
>>>>>>> between *(arr[i]) and (*arr)[i]? I'm interested in how they are evaluated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the first dereferences a pointer
>>>>>>> at arr[i] and the second dereferences the pointer arr, and then takes
>>>>>>> the ith element
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess your reply has confused the OP enough that it doesn't matter
>>>>> if I further point out that:
>>>>>
>>>>> - In the first example, arr is 'an array of T' or a 'pointer to T'
>>>>>
>>>>> - In the second example, arr is a 'pointer to array of T'.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that? (It's a reasonable assumption, but you seem to be
>>>> stating is as a certain matter of fact.)
>>>
>>> What are the other possibilities? That the arr in the second example
>>> might be a pointer to T?
>>
>> For the second, you could have
>>
>> int x = 4, *arr = &x;
>> int i[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
>>
>> so, yes, arr could be a pointer. It could also be an array:
>>
>> int arr[] = {4, 3, 2, 1};
>> int i[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
>>
>> Likewise, for the first, there is no need for arr to be an array or a
>> pointer:
>>
>> int x = 5, arr = 4;
>> int *i[] = {0, 0, 0, 0, &x};
>
> OK...
>
> Let me ask you, do you think it was a good idea for + between pointer
> and offset to be commutative?
Yes.
> That is, allowing offset+pointer as well as pointer+offset.
>
> Because, allowing the same equivalence between a[i] and *(a+i), that
> allows someone to write i[a]. Even though hardly anyone does this, you
> can never be quite sure.
I can be sure. You could be too, if you wanted to be.
> It also makes nonsense of the syntax a[i]: in a million other
> languages the thing in brackets is the index or selector, the thing
> outside is the collection or sequence you're trying to index into.
>
> So a[i] in C is obviously intended to look like those other uses, but
> that becomes futile is someone can also write i[a]. Or, worse, when i
> is the array and a is the index, and they write a[i].
You can (and should) write code that is easy to follow. C allows you to
do that. If you find it hard to write clear C code because of the
temptation to call an index 'a' and an array 'i' and then write a[i] you
definitely need another language. If you have come across code that
does that then you are been particularly unfortunate in your career, but
I'm not sure how fair it is to criticise C for it. It's certainly bad
code, but that bad code can be easily written in C is not news.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 13:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nohpup$81e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92118 |
On 11/08/2016 11:46, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 10/08/2016 01:12, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> How do you know that? (It's a reasonable assumption, but you seem to be >>>>> stating is as a certain matter of fact.) >> Because, allowing the same equivalence between a[i] and *(a+i), that >> allows someone to write i[a]. Even though hardly anyone does this, you >> can never be quite sure. > > I can be sure. You could be too, if you wanted to be. Yet I was the one who was sure (or rather, it never occurred to me that it might be otherwise) that the indexing was conventional, and you were the one who asked how I knew that. I think the less anyone mentions that anomaly, the less someone might be persuaded to use it! (And I have seen it used actually.) >> So a[i] in C is obviously intended to look like those other uses, but >> that becomes futile is someone can also write i[a]. Or, worse, when i >> is the array and a is the index, and they write a[i]. > > You can (and should) write code that is easy to follow. Yes of course. That's why I laid out my rules in another post about being ultra-strict with the usage of [] and *, and not mixing up pointers to arrays with pointers to their elements. The syntax presents some obstacles however in that the natural way of expressing certain terms is more cluttered than when you do mix them up. You might remember I showed the OP's examples in Pascal. In that language, it would be impossible for arr to have the same type in both examples. Or for each example, for arr to be either an array or a pointer. There is just no room for confusion or for speculation. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 15:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lh03e53s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #92119 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 11/08/2016 11:46, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>>>> On 10/08/2016 01:12, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>>>> How do you know that? (It's a reasonable assumption, but you seem to be >>>>>> stating is as a certain matter of fact.) > >>> Because, allowing the same equivalence between a[i] and *(a+i), that >>> allows someone to write i[a]. Even though hardly anyone does this, you >>> can never be quite sure. >> >> I can be sure. You could be too, if you wanted to be. > > Yet I was the one who was sure (or rather, it never occurred to me > that it might be otherwise) that the indexing was conventional, and > you were the one who asked how I knew that. What's your point? That you find C confusing? I know that. I think everyone knows that. You've also stated that you don't want to learn C's rules, so you will probably continue to find it confusing. I'm fine with that. The only problem is that you often post muddled explanations of arrays and pointers that, in my opinion, simply spread your confusion to others. Wouldn't it be better for everyone, and much simpler for you, if you just didn't post such explanations -- unless, of course, you decided to reconsider your objection to learning C's rules? <snip> > You might remember I showed the OP's examples in Pascal. Well, you showed one possible interpretation of the OP's examples as they would be written in Pascal. > In that > language, it would be impossible for arr to have the same type in both > examples. Or for each example, for arr to be either an array or a > pointer. Which is why you can't use (ISO) Pascal to explain what the examples mean. You can only use it to say what you (as a fan of Pascal and a critic of C) think they *should* mean > There is just no room for confusion or for speculation. Pascal is a simpler language, but translating code between languages can sometimes add to confusion someone has in both languages. In fact, since "Pascal" is something of a movable feast you can explain the C code in "Pascal" terms if you use Free Pascal which permits ^ and [] to be interchanged. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 16:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noi6kf$jld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92124 |
On 11/08/2016 15:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 11/08/2016 11:46, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>>>> On 10/08/2016 01:12, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>>>>>> How do you know that? (It's a reasonable assumption, but you seem to be >>>>>>> stating is as a certain matter of fact.) >> >>>> Because, allowing the same equivalence between a[i] and *(a+i), that >>>> allows someone to write i[a]. Even though hardly anyone does this, you >>>> can never be quite sure. >>> >>> I can be sure. You could be too, if you wanted to be. >> >> Yet I was the one who was sure (or rather, it never occurred to me >> that it might be otherwise) that the indexing was conventional, and >> you were the one who asked how I knew that. > > What's your point? That you find C confusing? I know that. I think > everyone knows that. You've also stated that you don't want to learn > C's rules, so you will probably continue to find it confusing. I'm fine > with that. > > The only problem is that you often post muddled explanations of arrays > and pointers that, in my opinion, simply spread your confusion to > others. It matches the muddleness of the language. What other language lets you declare a pointer to an array, then lets you index the pointer and dereference the array?! That is completely crazy. >> In that >> language, it would be impossible for arr to have the same type in both >> examples. Or for each example, for arr to be either an array or a >> pointer. > > Which is why you can't use (ISO) Pascal to explain what the examples > mean. You can use them to show what they ought to mean in any sane program, and what the OP clearly thought they meant. I don't think it's helpful that both those examples were interchangeable according to the language You can only use it to say what you (as a fan of Pascal and a > critic of C) think they *should* mean > >> There is just no room for confusion or for speculation. > > Pascal is a simpler language, but translating code between languages can > sometimes add to confusion someone has in both languages. The Pascal provided a universal explanation, in terms that cannot be argued with, of what the original C examples could mean. (A bit like cdecl makes sense of C declarations by turning them into English.) However the C versions are more ambiguous and less consistent. So 'arr' can change from array to pointer in the OP's first example; the C example is still legal, but is now likely to be wrong. The 'universal' version won't allow that. Now, C allows pointers to be dereferenced, and arrays to be treated as pointers, which is something not allowed using Pascal style. You can argue that that makes C more advanced (my view is the opposite, naturally, as it demonstrates the same disregard for type structure that you get in assembly). Since C can't be changed, my recommendation is to ignore those 'features' and to try to keep handling of arrays and pointers as sensible as possible. > In fact, since "Pascal" is something of a movable feast you can explain > the C code in "Pascal" terms if you use Free Pascal which permits ^ and > [] to be interchanged. I don't know what you mean here. It sounds like someone unwisely tried to get Pascal to emulate C. (But I anyway used 'Pascal' to avoid using my own language as an example. I don't allow an interchange of [] and ^; those ops need to strictly match the types involved, otherwise the language might as well give up on arrays completely and just use pointers everywhere.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 19:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87eg5vdu1s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #92128 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 11/08/2016 15:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 11/08/2016 11:46, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>>>>> On 10/08/2016 01:12, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> How do you know that? (It's a reasonable assumption, but you seem to be >>>>>>>> stating is as a certain matter of fact.) >>> >>>>> Because, allowing the same equivalence between a[i] and *(a+i), that >>>>> allows someone to write i[a]. Even though hardly anyone does this, you >>>>> can never be quite sure. >>>> >>>> I can be sure. You could be too, if you wanted to be. >>> >>> Yet I was the one who was sure (or rather, it never occurred to me >>> that it might be otherwise) that the indexing was conventional, and >>> you were the one who asked how I knew that. >> >> What's your point? That you find C confusing? I know that. I think >> everyone knows that. You've also stated that you don't want to learn >> C's rules, so you will probably continue to find it confusing. I'm fine >> with that. >> >> The only problem is that you often post muddled explanations of arrays >> and pointers that, in my opinion, simply spread your confusion to >> others. > > It matches the muddleness of the language. But that's not a justification -- quite the opposite in fact. A muddled language would demand the most scrupulously clear explanations. > What other language lets you declare a pointer to an array, then lets > you index the pointer and dereference the array?! That's a bit too muddled to answer. If you have a pointer to an array that is not an element of a bigger array, you can only index that pointer with 0 -- effectively you can only dereference the pointer -- but I don't know what you mean by the following "and dereference the array". (It sounds as if you *might* think that indexing a pointer to an array is the same as indexing the pointed-to array, but that's not the case in C although it is in Go.) If you have a pointer to an array that is itself part of an array, then of course you can index that pointer (within bounds), but again I don't know what the trailing "and dereference the array" means. I say "of course" because here in comp.lang.c the term "index" means "do pointer addition and then apply *". To have an object pointer you can derference but not index would add another special case, and C already has too many of those. I wanted to add a footnote above but my [1] syntax for footnotes would have just confused matters in a discussion of arrays and pointers. I was going to say that you can index a pointer to an array (one that is not an element of a larger array) by -1 as well as 0: int (*ap)[10]; int actual_array[10]; ap = &actual_array + 1; // This "one past the end" pointer is valid //... ap[-1] ... is valid here <snip> > Since C can't be changed, my recommendation is to ignore those > 'features' and to try to keep handling of arrays and pointers as > sensible as possible. Yes! We agree on something. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 18:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noiebn$fgf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92118 |
On 11/08/2016 11:46, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> So a[i] in C is obviously intended to look like those other uses, but
>> that becomes futile is someone can also write i[a]. Or, worse, when i
>> is the array and a is the index, and they write a[i].
>
> You can (and should) write code that is easy to follow. C allows you to
> do that. If you find it hard to write clear C code because of the
> temptation to call an index 'a' and an array 'i' and then write a[i] you
> definitely need another language. If you have come across code that
> does that then you are been particularly unfortunate in your career, but
> I'm not sure how fair it is to criticise C for it. It's certainly bad
> code, but that bad code can be easily written in C is not news.
I didn't have to look far. Posted today in Float Vs Double thread:
On 11/08/2016 15:08, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> #define COUNTED_ARRAY_1_( it ) (sizeof it / sizeof 0[it]), it
^^^^^
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 01:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87tweqdeuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #92137 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 11/08/2016 11:46, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> So a[i] in C is obviously intended to look like those other uses, but >>> that becomes futile is someone can also write i[a]. Or, worse, when i >>> is the array and a is the index, and they write a[i]. >> >> You can (and should) write code that is easy to follow. C allows you to >> do that. If you find it hard to write clear C code because of the >> temptation to call an index 'a' and an array 'i' and then write a[i] you >> definitely need another language. If you have come across code that >> does that then you are been particularly unfortunate in your career, but >> I'm not sure how fair it is to criticise C for it. It's certainly bad >> code, but that bad code can be easily written in C is not news. > > > I didn't have to look far. Posted today in Float Vs Double thread: > > On 11/08/2016 15:08, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> #define COUNTED_ARRAY_1_( it ) (sizeof it / sizeof 0[it]), it > > ^^^^^ That does not have an index called 'a' nor an array called 'i'. It's quite clear what the index is in this example. Like Stefan Ram, I don't object to using [] syntax for projection functions, though to go beyond using a constant, I'd want the names to help out (component_of[vector] or some such) and I'd probably only do it where I was mirroring some context where that notation was already used. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 11:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nok7qb$p2f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92178 |
On 12/08/2016 01:13, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> I didn't have to look far. Posted today in Float Vs Double thread: >> >> On 11/08/2016 15:08, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> #define COUNTED_ARRAY_1_( it ) (sizeof it / sizeof 0[it]), it >> >> ^^^^^ > > That does not have an index called 'a' nor an array called 'i'. It's > quite clear what the index is in this example. > > Like Stefan Ram, I don't object to using [] syntax for projection > functions, though to go beyond using a constant, I'd want the names to > help out (component_of[vector] or some such) and I'd probably only do it > where I was mirroring some context where that notation was already used. So to clarify, you don't object to using index[array]. Just so we know ... In real code of course you don't always have names as apt as 'array' and 'index'! Then it can be helpful to know, for sure, that the thing to the left of "[" is some sort of array. Out of interest, I wondered what would happen if I used 2 indices. So given: T2 arr1[M][N]; This would be the 'normal' way of accessing an element: arr1[i][j]; And this is what C also allows: i[arr1][j]; But it apparently also allows this: j[i[arr1]]; I don't know about you, but even with the self-explanatory variable names, I have trouble getting my head around this. It's the way these, at first sight, quirky, fun aspects of C that can rapidly lead to grotesque code that I find a little disturbing. More so when people jump to their defence! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsnqru9o.du2.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #92182 |
On 2016-08-12, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 12/08/2016 01:13, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> I didn't have to look far. Posted today in Float Vs Double thread: >>> >>> On 11/08/2016 15:08, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> #define COUNTED_ARRAY_1_( it ) (sizeof it / sizeof 0[it]), it >>> >>> ^^^^^ >> >> That does not have an index called 'a' nor an array called 'i'. It's >> quite clear what the index is in this example. >> >> Like Stefan Ram, I don't object to using [] syntax for projection >> functions, though to go beyond using a constant, I'd want the names to >> help out (component_of[vector] or some such) and I'd probably only do it >> where I was mirroring some context where that notation was already used. > > So to clarify, you don't object to using index[array]. > > Just so we know ... > > In real code of course you don't always have names as apt as 'array' and > 'index'! Then it can be helpful to know, for sure, that the thing to the > left of "[" is some sort of array. > > Out of interest, I wondered what would happen if I used 2 indices. So given: > > T2 arr1[M][N]; > > This would be the 'normal' way of accessing an element: > > arr1[i][j]; > > And this is what C also allows: > > i[arr1][j]; > > But it apparently also allows this: > > j[i[arr1]]; > > I don't know about you, but even with the self-explanatory variable > names, I have trouble getting my head around this. It's not difficult, but it may take some practice. Just practice this thing for a week, for, say, one minute a day. At the end of the week you'll be mastering it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 18:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nol2b0$jbq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92201 |
On 12/08/2016 17:28, Ike Naar wrote:
>> But it apparently also allows this:
>>
>> j[i[arr1]];
>>
>> I don't know about you, but even with the self-explanatory variable
>> names, I have trouble getting my head around this.
>
> It's not difficult, but it may take some practice.
> Just practice this thing for a week, for, say, one minute a day.
> At the end of the week you'll be mastering it.
(Are you taking the p*ss?)
You can write stuff like this but it would be so unusual that it would
confuse people.
I demonstrated that a little, apparently harmless quirk like writing
a[i] as i[a] has wider possibilities for writing obfuscated code than at
first appears.
But if you're in the mood for games, how about this: given a 2D flat
array defined as:
T arr2[M][N];
How many ways are there of writing an expression that accesses the
element (that is, ending up with a value of type T starting from arr2)?
I came up with 8 for 2D arrays:
arr2[i][j]; // index index
i[arr2][j];
j[i[arr2]];
(*arr2)[i]; // deref index
i[*arr2];
*(arr2[i]); // index deref
*(i[arr2]);
**arr2; // deref deref
With 3D, I rapidly got bored, but I estimated there might be 20:
T arr3[M][N][O];
arr3[i][j][k]; // i i i
i[arr3][j][k];
j[i[arr3]][k];
k[j[i[arr3]]];
(*arr3)[i][j]; // d i i
i[(*arr3)][j];
j[i[(*arr3)]];
(*arr3[i])[j]; // i d i
(i[*arr3])[j];
j[i[*arr3]];
*(arr3[i][j]); // i i d
//...
//... // d d i
//... // d i d
//... // i d d
***arr3; // d d d
What's the general formula for an N-dimensional array?
A bit of fun which glosses over the fact that an ordinary language would
would normally have just one way of doing so for each rank of array.
Also over the fact that each of these sets of terms, used for accessing
an N-dimensional array of T element, can also legally be used to access
2**N-1 other type combinations based around T.
So if N=3, P=Pointer and A=Array, then all of these 8 differently
structured types:
A A A arr3[][][] as above
P A A (*arr3)[][] etc
A P A
P P A
A A P
P A P
A P P
P P P
can be accessed by any of the exact same set of 20 (or whatever)
possible ways of accessing AAA. The language will not complain.
Of course not all of them will give the expected results, but having the
language give you hints would spoil the fun. Again, an ordinary language
would require the access term to exactly match the type (spoil-sports).
C is an amazing language (which you can take as either sarcastic or not.)
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsnqs4mn.lfp.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #92204 |
On 2016-08-12, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 12/08/2016 17:28, Ike Naar wrote: > >>> But it apparently also allows this: >>> >>> j[i[arr1]]; >>> >>> I don't know about you, but even with the self-explanatory variable >>> names, I have trouble getting my head around this. >> >> It's not difficult, but it may take some practice. >> Just practice this thing for a week, for, say, one minute a day. >> At the end of the week you'll be mastering it. > > (Are you taking the p*ss?) > > You can write stuff like this but it would be so unusual that it would > confuse people. You don't have to write stuff like this if you don't like it, but when you read C code it would be good to understand code written like this, and not having trouble getting your head around it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2baffab6-79be-4f6b-b078-9c6f02352901@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92205 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:18:26 PM UTC+1, Ike Naar wrote: > On 2016-08-12, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > > You can write stuff like this but it would be so unusual that it would > > confuse people. > > You don't have to write stuff like this if you don't like it, but > when you read C code it would be good to understand code written > like this, and not having trouble getting your head around it. > Sometimes you have to read C code written by idiots, or maybe more frequently, by people who have a good mathematical understanding of computer programming, but don't have the concept that a program is also a means of human-to-human communication, and are clueless about the software engineering aspect of things. But just as Tolstoy said that whilst each happy family is happy in the same way, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own, unique way, each bad programmer has his own list of errors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsnqs8uk.bcj.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #92206 |
On 2016-08-12, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:18:26 PM UTC+1, Ike Naar wrote: >> On 2016-08-12, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >> > You can write stuff like this but it would be so unusual that it would >> > confuse people. >> >> You don't have to write stuff like this if you don't like it, but >> when you read C code it would be good to understand code written >> like this, and not having trouble getting your head around it. >> > Sometimes you have to read C code written by idiots, or maybe > more frequently, by people who have a good mathematical understanding > of computer programming, but don't have the concept that a program > is also a means of human-to-human communication, and are clueless > about the software engineering aspect of things. A competent C programmer must be able to read and recognize valid C, even if they don't like the style it's written in. Of course they don't have to write it like that, but they should be able to recogize it without having trouble to get their heads around it. Calling the other clueless, or an idiot, is just human nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 20:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nol8up$akg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92207 |
On 12/08/2016 20:30, Ike Naar wrote: > On 2016-08-12, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:18:26 PM UTC+1, Ike Naar wrote: >>> On 2016-08-12, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >>>> You can write stuff like this but it would be so unusual that it would >>>> confuse people. >>> >>> You don't have to write stuff like this if you don't like it, but >>> when you read C code it would be good to understand code written >>> like this, and not having trouble getting your head around it. >>> >> Sometimes you have to read C code written by idiots, or maybe >> more frequently, by people who have a good mathematical understanding >> of computer programming, but don't have the concept that a program >> is also a means of human-to-human communication, and are clueless >> about the software engineering aspect of things. > > A competent C programmer must be able to read and recognize valid > C, even if they don't like the style it's written in. Of course > they don't have to write it like that, but they should be able to > recogize it without having trouble to get their heads around it. The language allowing dozens of ways to express the same thing really doesn't help. Even basic stuff such as accessing a 2D array. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnlh01ptae.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92209 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 12/08/2016 20:30, Ike Naar wrote:
[...]
>> A competent C programmer must be able to read and recognize valid
>> C, even if they don't like the style it's written in. Of course
>> they don't have to write it like that, but they should be able to
>> recogize it without having trouble to get their heads around it.
>
> The language allowing dozens of ways to express the same thing really
> doesn't help. Even basic stuff such as accessing a 2D array.
True.
Nevertheless, "A competent C programmer must be able to read and
recognize valid C, even if they don't like the style it's written
in. Of course they don't have to write it like that, but they should
be able to recogize it without having trouble to get their heads
around it."
--
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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 23:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a8ghbq5u.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #92206 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:18:26 PM UTC+1, Ike Naar wrote: >> On 2016-08-12, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >> > You can write stuff like this but it would be so unusual that it would >> > confuse people. >> >> You don't have to write stuff like this if you don't like it, but >> when you read C code it would be good to understand code written >> like this, and not having trouble getting your head around it. >> > Sometimes you have to read C code written by idiots, or maybe > more frequently, by people who have a good mathematical understanding > of computer programming, but don't have the concept that a program > is also a means of human-to-human communication, and are clueless > about the software engineering aspect of things. Your words reveal a lot about the world you inhabit. In my world, mathematicians are human beings too. I've written programs whose sole purpose is to communicate with mathematicians. That's human-to-human communication, and good software engineering involves understanding who will be reading your code and what overall purpose it serves. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 22:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0b61030-bf9c-495f-a5e6-5bf35485cc85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92217 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:04:05 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > > Sometimes you have to read C code written by idiots, or maybe > > more frequently, by people who have a good mathematical understanding > > of computer programming, but don't have the concept that a program > > is also a means of human-to-human communication, and are clueless > > about the software engineering aspect of things. > > Your words reveal a lot about the world you inhabit. In my world, > mathematicians are human beings too. I've written programs whose sole > purpose is to communicate with mathematicians. That's human-to-human > communication, and good software engineering involves understanding who > will be reading your code and what overall purpose it serves. > I've got the skills and the requirement to read mathematical papers, but not to write one. I don't develop new mathematical methods, at least in the normal sense of the term. However you rarely get C source from a mathematical paper, and if the author is generous enough to provide some, it's a bit churlish to fuss about the engineering quality. I was referring to a slightly lower level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07dcdc0d-bb71-4620-b253-ce87683f3c14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92182 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:19:00 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > This would be the 'normal' way of accessing an element: > > arr1[i][j]; > > And this is what C also allows: > > i[arr1][j]; > > But it apparently also allows this: > > j[i[arr1]]; > > I don't know about you, but even with the self-explanatory variable > names, I have trouble getting my head around this. > > It's the way these, at first sight, quirky, fun aspects of C that can > rapidly lead to grotesque code that I find a little disturbing. More so > when people jump to their defence! > It was decided that ptr[5] and 5[ptr] would mean the same thing, making [] syntactic sugar for the + operator with a pointer and integer operand, coupled with a dereference. Whatever the reasons at the time, it's a fossil and undesirable. The ptr[5] form is the only one acceptable. However you do often need double indexing. array is a list of employees, and index is a list of integers, referring to employees, sorted by salary. so for(i=0;i<N;i++) employee[ index[i] ] ; will get us the employees in order of salary, without needing to sort the whole structure. We could also reasonably make index a list of pointers, especially if the employees are not held in a flat array in memory. And whilst employees are single units, make them points in 3D space, and you've got a natural extra dimension.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 21:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nolaae$f8o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92208 |
On 12/08/2016 20:37, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:19:00 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> >> This would be the 'normal' way of accessing an element: >> >> arr1[i][j]; >> >> And this is what C also allows: >> >> i[arr1][j]; >> >> But it apparently also allows this: >> >> j[i[arr1]]; >> >> I don't know about you, but even with the self-explanatory variable >> names, I have trouble getting my head around this. >> >> It's the way these, at first sight, quirky, fun aspects of C that can >> rapidly lead to grotesque code that I find a little disturbing. More so >> when people jump to their defence! >> > It was decided that > > ptr[5] and 5[ptr] would mean the same thing, making [] syntactic sugar > for the + operator with a pointer and integer operand, coupled with > a dereference. > Whatever the reasons at the time, it's a fossil and undesirable. > The ptr[5] form is the only one acceptable. > > However you do often need double indexing. array is a list of > employees, and index is a list of integers, referring to > employees, sorted by salary. so > for(i=0;i<N;i++) > employee[ index[i] ] ; That's nested indexing. Double indexing might simply be a[i][j], although interestingly, my transformation into j[i[a]] turns that into a nested indexing! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d1fc37d-187e-46a1-8e12-e7566e46ab5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92210 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 3:07:51 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > On 12/08/2016 20:37, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > for(i=0;i<N;i++) > > employee[ index[i] ] ; > > That's nested indexing. Double indexing might simply be a[i][j], > although interestingly, my transformation into j[i[a]] turns that into a > nested indexing! Hmm... so index[i][employee] or i[index][employee] would be equivalent to the double-indexed form? That's interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web