I guess I don't see the significance of such an exercise. Who knows. I'll sleep on this tonight. Maybe when I wake up in the morning, I will see the significance of it. But right now, I don't.
Type: Posts; User: Overworked_PhD
I guess I don't see the significance of such an exercise. Who knows. I'll sleep on this tonight. Maybe when I wake up in the morning, I will see the significance of it. But right now, I don't.
Geeze man, yet you say that I'm the uneducated one when it comes to computer programming.
Hahahahaha. I knew that was coming.
MK27 cited the standard. If there was zero possibility of a pointer holding something other than an address, then this would have been stated. But it isn't.
This is the same reason why the standard uses the term 'object' instead of 'variable'. This is because a variable is a specific example of an object. However, there are objects, that aren't...
Shut up. You are dumb, annoying, and you probably look like a hooker in pantyhose.
Yes it is. The standard speaks in abstract/general terms. Your problem is that you are thinking in concrete/specific terms. You just have to let go of the fact that a pointer might hold something...
Which One? There are a few that I communicate with on a regular basis.
I was being sarcastic. Now, the point is than an address is a concrete example of a pointer. Just like how the velocity of an object at a specific time is a concrete example of the derivative. In...
Yes, because it's totally obvious that both MK27 and whitefang has sided with you.
No, it's a standard SUN Machine with a conforming C compiler. It would only be a Kodak standard if the company had modified the compiler.
Some of the SUN Machines at Kodak use an offset, and not an address, when it comes to stuff like indexing arrays.
Again, quit side stepping the issue and cite the exact ANSI/ISO C passages that explicitly state that a pointer must hold an address. I mean, if you are going to say I'm wrong, at least have the...
How hard is it to try and prove me wrong? I mean, the only thing that you seem to be good at is arguing with people.
You are the one that stated I was wrong. So now I'm asking you to prove it. God. Not only are you annoying, but quite frankly, you aren't that bright.
And for people like laserlight and MK27, please don't help this guy out. Let this guy do his own homework.
I can't find anything that says a pointer must hold an address. So in other words, all you are doing is making baseless claims. Ie, you can't provide any solid facts to back up your assertions. So...
Quit side stepping the issue. Can you or can you not cite the exact passages to back up your claims?
K & D is part of claudiu's version of C.
You made the following statements
Now, for the second time, I'm asking you to back up this claim by citing the passages in ANSI/ISO C that explicitly state that a pointer must hold an address.
No. You made an assertion, and now I'm asking you to back it up.
Huh? Can you please that in proper English. Also, please cite the passages that explicitly state a pointer must hold an address because I don't see it.
Eric is speaking in terms of the modern standard you halfwit.
This definition has been superceeded by the ANSI/ISO one.
I don't see anything funny about this. Remeber, C is supposed to be portable. So how does one go about defining the rules for a portable language? By writing in generalized terms.