No. You made an assertion, and now I'm asking you to back it up.
Printable View
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.Quote:
First, don't call him Eric. As I said before, he is not your buddy. Secondly, the ANSI standard doesn't define a pointer as a data type not holding an address.
No I can't quote it because I am not even going to bother searching for it. You know why? Because a pointer is a data type that HOLDS AN ADDRESS you idiot! Read my lips: Pointer = addres. Did you catch that yet?
I am not going to provide any evidence to my claims because I will get you into a bad habit of asking for evidence for VERY OBVIOUS THINGS like why 1+1 equals 2 in base 10. So why don't you prove me wrong instead? Give me a pointer that doesn't hold an address and I will believe you. Until then, you remain the same impotent C programmer I've known.
And for people like laserlight and MK27, please don't help this guy out. Let this guy do his own homework.
You claim some fictitiously usenet post, that you don't actually cite, and hold that as a credible source, but discredit probably THE most popular C book, choosing to believe your fake ass usenet post by someone less known than the authors of said book.
Nice job, troll. Let's make the ban permanent this time, since you add nothing of value to any conversation, and continually try to hijack newbie threads to confuse them.
Quzah.