initializing array using pointer

[Chuck F.]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate

Kenny McCormack wrote:[color=blue]
> Chuck F. <cbfalconer@wor ldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ....[color=green]
>> And experience has shown that a non-vanishing fraction of googlers
>> are capable of learning.[/color]
>
> I'm not clear on what you mean by a "non-vanishing fraction". Are
> you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?[/color]

Disagreeing. As long as that non-vanishing fraction can learn and
become reasonable netizens, it is worthwhile advising them.

--
Read about the Sony stealthware that is a security leak, phones
home, and is generally illegal in most parts of the world. Also
the apparent connivance of the various security software firms.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html

[slebetman@yahoo.com]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate

Chuck F. wrote:[color=blue]
> Kenny McCormack wrote:[color=green]
> > Chuck F. <cbfalconer@wor ldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > ....[color=darkred]
> >> And experience has shown that a non-vanishing fraction of googlers
> >> are capable of learning.[/color]
> >
> > I'm not clear on what you mean by a "non-vanishing fraction". Are
> > you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?[/color]
>
> Disagreeing. As long as that non-vanishing fraction can learn and
> become reasonable netizens, it is worthwhile advising them.
>[/color]

Yes, worked on ME, you I've only clicked the "reply" thing once on
google - for my first post. Keep up the good work regardless of what
people say. It's certainly effective.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate

In article <hLSdnaHEQPGHzQ LeRVn-rw@maineline.ne t>,
Chuck F. <cbfalconer@wor ldnet.att.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>Kenny McCormack wrote:[color=green]
>> Chuck F. <cbfalconer@wor ldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> ....[color=darkred]
>>> And experience has shown that a non-vanishing fraction of googlers
>>> are capable of learning.[/color]
>>
>> I'm not clear on what you mean by a "non-vanishing fraction". Are
>> you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?[/color]
>
>Disagreeing. As long as that non-vanishing fraction can learn and
>become reasonable netizens, it is worthwhile advising them.[/color]

So I can interpret "non-vanishing" as "non-zero" (or, in mathematical
terms, some epsilon where epsilon > 0) ?

In any case, my point is that googlers come and googlers go - so even if
you managed to "educate" 1 in 10 in any given day, tomorrow, there'll be
a whole new horde of the unwashed - and they'll be gone by nightfall, never
to return, but simply to be replaced by a new horde.

Plus, there's the whole question of whether anybody *should* change their
behavior simply because they are asked (granted, asked nicely) to do so,
when that behavior change goes against their optical perception of the
world. Granted, there are some people like this and more power *to* them,
but they are rare.

[Jack Klein]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate (was: Re: initializing array using pointer)

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:19:53 GMT, rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote in comp.lang.c:
[color=blue]
> gazelle@yin.int eraccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>[color=green]
> > In article <dnmncm$duq$1@c hessie.cirr.com >,
> > Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >Johny <inform.inn@gma il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Question not clear.
> > >
> > >Neither was your response:
> > >
> > >It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
> > >you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
> > >instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:
> > >
> > >If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
> > >the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
> > >"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
> > >"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.[/color]
> >
> > You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get it.[/color]
>
> Neither will you, but if we stop trying your kind will have won and all
> will be barbarity.
>
> Richard[/color]

If you keep wasting your breath on this jerk, his kind will have won
and all will be trollish.

Arguing with a troll will get you nowhere, but it will amuse the troll
and encourage him to keep at it.

I plonked this rectum a long, long time ago, and would never see his
name except for those who can't resist feeding the troll.

So you have now been warned about your breach of etiquette. If you
don't like the idiot's defense of Google top-posters, do the decent
thing and plonk him.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.l earn.c-c++

http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate (was: Re: initializing array using pointer)

In article <s02vp19clp1aec lu87d4pseqaotlc ilqu3@4ax.com>,
Jack Klein <jackklein@spam cop.net> wrote:
....[color=blue]
>So you have now been warned about your breach of etiquette. If you
>don't like the idiot's defense of Google top-posters, do the decent
>thing and plonk him.[/color]

Where do you get me "defending" Google top-posters???

Unless you think that umbrella makers are defending the rain?
Hint: You have no more control over top-posters than you do over the
weather.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate

"Chuck F. " <cbfalconer@yah oo.com> writes:[color=blue]
> Kenny McCormack wrote:[color=green]
>> Chuck F. <cbfalconer@wor ldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> ....[color=darkred]
>>> And experience has shown that a non-vanishing fraction of googlers
>>> are capable of learning.[/color]
>> I'm not clear on what you mean by a "non-vanishing fraction". Are
>> you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?[/color]
>
> Disagreeing. As long as that non-vanishing fraction can learn and
> become reasonable netizens, it is worthwhile advising them.[/color]

Kenny McCormack appears to be impervious to reason; replying to his
posts is a waste of time. In other words, please don't feed the
troll.

And welcome back, Chuck.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: initializing array using pointer

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@s pamcop.net> writes:[color=blue]
> On 13 Dec 2005 01:56:25 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "arun"
> <arkoshy@gmail. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>suppose i have a pointer to an array of integers.can i initialize each
>>member of the array using pointers?plz explain[/color]
>
> No. Initialisation is something that happens when you declare the
> variable.
>
> You probably mean assign. In which case sure, just iterate over the
> array, pointing to each element and assigning it a value.[/color]

The word "initialization " is often used informally to refer to
assigning an initial value to a variable. The usage isn't strictly
consistent with the standard, but I think we recently saw a case where
the standard itself uses the word in this informal sense (I don't
remember the details).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[arun]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate (was: Re: initializing array using pointer)


Kenny McCormack wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <dnmncm$duq$1@c hessie.cirr.com >,
> Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:[color=green]
> >Johny <inform.inn@gma il.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Question not clear.[/color]
> >
> >Neither was your response:
> >
> >It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the relevant portions of the text
> >you are replying to. To do this using Google groups, please follow the
> >instructions below, penned by Keith Thompson:
> >
> >If you want to post a followup via groups.google.c om, don't use
> >the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
> >"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
> >"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.[/color]
>
> You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get
> it. And I'll tell you why.
>
> Imagine that there's a mouse - and the mouse is the Usenet. You and I can
> see that it is a mouse and we behave accordingly. But now there is a class
> of users (we'll call them "googlers") that are wearing these funny weird
> glasses that make them see not a mouse, but an elephant. Seeing an
> elephant (i.e., the Usenet as a web page), they also behave accordingly.
> And no amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them that it's not
> an elephant - that it is only a mouse.
>
> To make this more clear, to a googler, it doesn't make any sense to "quote"
> (whatever the heck that is...), in fact, to do so would be absurd, when all
> the rest of the articles in the thread are right there in front of their
> faces (just as clear as the trunk on that mouse, er, elephant). And no
> amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them not to believe what
> they see. The point is you can *never* convince someone that what they see
> isn't reality. The only way you can address the problem is to help them
> fix their eyesight (or help them remove their funny glasses).[/color]




well kenny thts a whole bag of bull shit

[arun]

Re: initializing array using pointer


Mark McIntyre wrote:[color=blue]
> On 13 Dec 2005 01:56:25 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "arun"
> <arkoshy@gmail. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >suppose i have a pointer to an array of integers.can i initialize each
> >member of the array using pointers?plz explain[/color]
>
> No. Initialisation is something that happens when you declare the
> variable.
>
> You probably mean assign. In which case sure, just iterate over the
> array, pointing to each element and assigning it a value.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----[/color]



No i meant initialize itself.so you are saying i cant initialize a
pointer?

[arun]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate


[color=blue]
> In any case, my point is that googlers come and googlers go - so even if
> you managed to "educate" 1 in 10 in any given day, tomorrow, there'll be
> a whole new horde of the unwashed - and they'll be gone by nightfall, never
> to return, but simply to be replaced by a new horde.[/color]

hey kenny there is something called learning experience.you have to
"educate" as many newbies as you can.If you cant why the hell r you
arguing with christopher???? ?


I believe he is doing a splendid job.

[Chuck F.]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate

Keith Thompson wrote:[color=blue]
>[/color]
.... snip ...[color=blue]
>
> Kenny McCormack appears to be impervious to reason; replying to his
> posts is a waste of time. In other words, please don't feed the
> troll.
>
> And welcome back, Chuck.[/color]

Thanks. Had come to that conclusion, and he has earned the honor
of being the first entry in my c.l.c plonk file.

--
Read about the Sony stealthware that is a security leak, phones
home, and is generally illegal in most parts of the world. Also
the apparent connivance of the various security software firms.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate

arun <arkoshy@gmail. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> well kenny thts a whole bag of bull (expletive deleted)[/color]

I assure you that we are all well aware of that fact. Please don't
feed the troll.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate

In article <dnp9qe$oqj$1@c hessie.cirr.com >,
Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:[color=blue]
>arun <arkoshy@gmail. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> well kenny thts a whole bag of bull (expletive deleted)[/color]
>
>I assure you that we are all well aware of that fact. Please don't
>feed the troll.[/color]

Agreed. Non-orthodoxy is so terrifying to the high-priests.

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: initializing array using pointer

On 13 Dec 2005 21:06:21 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "arun"
<arkoshy@gmail. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>No i meant initialize itself.so you are saying i cant initialize a
>pointer?[/color]

Of course you can, but your question was pretty unclear. You said you
had a pointer to an array of ints, and you wanted to initalise it with
pointers. That doesn't make sense to me.

This is initialisation:

// initalise x to 4
int x = 4;

// initalise px to the address of x
int *px = &x;


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Default User]

Re: OT, Google boilerplate

Chuck F. wrote:
[color=blue]
> Kenny McCormack wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I'm not clear on what you mean by a "non-vanishing fraction". Are
> > you agreeing or disagreeing with my point?[/color]
>
> Disagreeing. As long as that non-vanishing fraction can learn and
> become reasonable netizens, it is worthwhile advising them.[/color]

Of course it is. Understand that Kenny just wants to cause trouble on
the newsgroup.


Brian

--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.