Well, to be honest, I've found myself looking at the assembly of generated C++ code from time to time to find out what the heck is happening.
But to disassemble an entire executable file is probably not very many people who do.
It's not about worth. Is a no trespassing sign worth testing? It simply doesn't make sense. You made assumptions about the statement such as thinking that variables could not occupy the same space in memory they did last time. Whether they do or not has no bearing on the assumptions the author is asking you to make or not make.
That wasn't a theory I mentioned, it was a metaphor for the particular statement in question. By no means do I intend the same logic to apply to things willy-nilly. Really the original statement being discussed comes down to the author saying "assume nothing". Now you can make assumptions and then test those assumptions, but as I think you've now come to realise, that doesn't and in fact cant invalidate what the original statement says. Just assume no knowledge of the location of your variables is the intent the author is trying to get across here.
You simply misunderstood. It's not about not being worthy of proving, it makes no sense to try and prove, just like the no trespassing sign example, because it is not a statement about the behaviour that your compiled program will actually give.Quote:
Revered Sir,
proving that might be an utter foolishness and worthless for you but for a humble beginner like me, the learning from the proof is worth its salt :)
the question is not whether I misunderstood you or not, whether you mentioned "No Trespassing" as a metaphor or as a theory but rather the question is "How in the world would I know whether the assumptions made by me are true or a big fat fallacy" ? or whether I'm "not allowed" to make any assumptions at all ?
Unless I experiment and post my doubts here, how can I learn that the statement at hand is the "world's-most-obvious-fact" ?
you being an experienced C++ expert, is in a position to make that call but for beginners like me experimenting and then asking the experts is the right way to proceed on the learning curve, in fact even to make the "obvious" distinction of whether the statement is about the behaviour that your compiled program will give or not, I have to experiment, thats the way I am because for me experimentation is the road to salvationQuote:
It's not about not being worthy of proving, it makes no sense to try and prove, just like the no trespassing sign example, because it is not a statement about the behaviour that your compiled program will actually give
I respectfully refuse to take things "granted" and I am determined to experiment and post as many foolish questions as I can, even though it may make me the laughing stock of the forum or bag me many funny jibes(or even "NoTrespassing" metaphors) or whatever, but I don't care until I am learningQuote:
Just assume no knowledge of the location of your variables is the intent the author is trying to get across here.
Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish :)
Experimentation is good. But there are simply some things that you cannot get a proper understanding from through experimentation alone. Memory management like this is one of them, because it will be different from platform to platform and various circumstances.
If you want to know more, then you shouldn't experiment, but instead study operating system principles and see how they would deal with it.