Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: pointers |
| Date | 2016-10-26 01:02 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <nuorqb$a9j$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <lnlgxc88q0.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nuol16$idr$1@dont-email.me> <lnd1io8354.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nuopn1$57r$1@dont-email.me> <ln4m408048.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
On 26/10/2016 00:44, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> I don't think like that at all. I just use & either to get the address >> of a storage location designated by an expression, or to offset a >> pointer operation. I don't care what the standard says! > > I suggest that's why you have such difficulty understanding or accepting > the actual rules. You think `& &*foo` makes some kind of sense, and you > refuse to accept the reasonably straightforward reasons that it doesn't. Yet if the Standard had slightly different wording, then suddenly it would make sense to you as well! But we'd be dealing with exactly the same objects and operations. >> I'm not that bothered what language it is either. When you're dealing >> with explicit pointers then the issues of applying address-of or >> dereferencing pointers are universal. > > Not really. Applying address-of makes sense only when there's an object > whose address you want. Well in your example of '& &*foo' I'd say that reduces to '&foo' due to the &* cancelling each other. So we have the address of the object foo. Perfectly reasonable. But the small-print in the C standard says that even though the &* in &*foo cancels to result in just foo, you can't apply the second & to '&*foo' as you can with 'foo' itself. You must see that it is the wording in that document that stops this construct being legal, rather than anything wrong with the universal ideas involved with this pointer and address manipulation. I think even Ben Bacarisse agreed with me that the Standard could easily have had a somewhat different rule, where &* elimination was applied recursively, that would have made & &*foo legal. -- Bartc
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
pointers asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 08:11 -0700
Re: pointers Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-23 16:26 +0100
Re: pointers asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 10:35 -0700
Re: pointers Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-23 17:47 +0000
Re: pointers asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-10-25 12:55 -0700
Re: pointers "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-23 13:58 -0400
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 00:55 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-23 17:27 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 11:53 +0100
Re: pointers supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-24 07:29 -0700
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 08:55 -0700
Re: pointers Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-24 14:02 -0700
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 14:42 -0700
Re: pointers Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-25 08:56 -0700
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 12:17 -0700
Re: pointers Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-26 06:37 -0700
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 08:49 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 17:25 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 09:52 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 18:15 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 12:20 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 20:58 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 13:16 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-24 23:53 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 13:38 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-25 23:06 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 15:39 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 00:26 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 16:44 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 01:02 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 17:35 -0700
Re: pointers Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-26 06:27 +0000
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 12:47 +0100
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-26 09:05 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 18:46 +0100
Re: pointers supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-26 11:44 -0700
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 20:12 +0100
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 20:30 +0100
Re: pointers supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-26 13:02 -0700
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-26 11:52 -0700
Re: pointers Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-26 19:11 +0000
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-26 21:25 +0100
Re: pointers "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-25 18:56 -0400
Re: pointers "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-25 19:12 -0400
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-25 16:31 -0700
Re: pointers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-24 21:36 +0100
Re: pointers BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-25 16:54 +0100
Re: pointers Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-25 19:09 +0100
Re: pointers supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-24 11:33 -0700
Re: pointers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-24 12:22 -0700
Re: pointers James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-24 10:23 -0400
Re: pointers "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-23 12:31 -0400
Re: pointers Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-23 17:38 +0100
Re: pointers Lorinczy Zsigmond <zsiga@nospam.for.me> - 2016-10-24 14:02 +0200
Re: pointers John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 13:34 -0700
csiph-web