Re: Array name as pointers
Richard G. Riley wrote:[color=blue]
> On 2006-03-26, John Bode <john_bode@my-deja.com> wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > Richard G. Riley wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> On 2006-03-26, Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthl ink.net> wrote:
> >> > newgoat wrote:
> >> >> As far as I understand, in "int arr[10]", the name of the integer array
> >> >> "arr"
> >> >> is equivalent to the pointer to the first element of the array. But is
> >> >> "arr"
> >> >> really a pointer, identical as "int *arr;" ?
> >> >
> >> > No. This question is so dead and boring it makes the parrot look
> >> > lively. Do you imagine you are the first with this thought? It is to
> >> > avoid repeatedly answering such things that we have a FAQ
> >> ><http://c-faq.com/>. Please check it before posting.
> >>
> >> I assume you will be as rude to everyone else in this NG whose
> >> questions are already answered in the FAQ and the Ansi Standard?[/color]
> >
> > God, I hope so.[/color]
>
> Then you need to step back and reconsider.
>[/color]
Why? It's just a fracking newsgroup, for frack's sake.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Since
> >> that's about 99.9% of them (since we're constantly told you cant ask
> >> programming questions here - only pure C ones), then I suspect you'll
> >> be a busy little bee.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > The focus of this newsgroup is the C programming language, not
> > applications that just happen to be written in C. Why is that so hard
> > for people to understand?[/color]
>
> What was not "C" in the OP?
>[/color]
I wasn't responding to the OP, I was responding to your statement that
"you can't ask programming questions here - only pure C ones." You're
too busy being so goddamned offended on other people's behalf to pay
attention to what I'm saying.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Wouldn't it have been so much nicer of you to say:
> >>
> >> "Good morning, this issue confuses a lot of C prgroammers. Here is a
> >> link to the FAQ which might help".
> >>
> >> Because one thing is common knowledge and "boring" to you, doesnt mean
> >> it is to someone new who comes here for help. If that is your attitude
> >> then I suggest you don't bother trying to help.
> >>
> >> Have a good day now[/color]
> >
> > I've been following this newsgroup since around 1994, and I have to[/color]
>
> The old "long term service medal" does not wash. Sorry.[/color]
Quit interrupting. It's *rude*. And you missed the point.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > say, after 12 years of people asking the same exact questions the same
> > exact way, it's hard to stay civil. And people have good days and
> > bad[/color]
>
> Then dont respond. Let someone else who is less bored respond. By your
> rational there is no need for beginners guides because C has been
> around for so long.
>[/color]
Hey, guess what? I didn't respond to the OP. I thought Martin had
done an adequate job in that respect. I was responding to *you*.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > days; I've seen Martin be just as pleasant as you wished everyone would
> > be.[/color]
>
> So what? Was he here? Sorry, but that doesnt in any way justify his
> reply to someone who came here in good faith looking for help. The
> first name terms suggest a certain affiliation with him : this is
> maybe the type of clique to which I referred.
>[/color]
What the hell else am I going to call him? "Mr. Ambuhl?" "His Nibs?"
"That guy? Who wrote that article?" Referring to him by the name he
actually uses for posting here isn't being "cliquey" or familiar.
Jeez.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > It is simply a part of usenet etiquette to lurk a while, see if your[/color]
>
> For you. Some people come hre to get an answer and then depart. If you
> dont want to , or cant, help the ignore if you have nothing civil to say.
>[/color]
QUIT INTERRUPTING. IT'S RUDE.
And no, it's *not* just for me. It is accepted usenet etiquette for
*everyone*; you, me, and everyone else. Usenet is not a quickie
reference manual; it is not the place to go when you want an answer
*now*.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > question has already been addressed (through the wonders of Google
> > search), and read the newsgroup FAQ if one exists. Given that the FAQ
> > for this particular newsgroup gets posted twice a month, it's not
> > entirely unreasonable to be annoyed when someone asks a question that
> > it addresses.[/color]
>
> It is totally unreasonable. Not everyone is here for a month "lurking"
> before they post. Not all usenet servers duplicate all posts.[/color]
Which brings us, again, to the wonders of Google, and this wonderful
technology known as "searching the archive." If you're smart enough to
post here in the first place, you're smart enough to do a search.
Google does a pretty damned good job archiving, and you should be able
to find the FAQ easily enough.
Go to comp.lang.c in Google groups, type FAQ in the search box, and
whammo, second link down is the latest FAQ entry.
This is not hard. It's not unreasonable to expect everyone who comes
to this group to first do a search, which will likely get them the
answer they need faster than waiting for a response.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >
> > It's also hard to stay pleasant with all the self-appointed 'net
> > nannies boo-hooing about how *rude* we're all being.
> >[/color]
>
> The last paragraph is particularly telling.
>[/color]
Yeah. You're at least forty times more annoying than any random
clueless newbie.
[color=blue]
> Its really simple : if you can and want to then "help". If not,
> dont. There is nothing that ruins a thread more than the usual
> suspects piling in with their "read the fucking FAQ" type posts when
> other more tolerant posters have posted a link or help directly.
>[/color]
And guess what I didn't do. Again, I was responding to *you*, not the
OP.
[color=blue]
> If you dont't see that that you should take a break.[/color]
Here's my posting history. Tell me how useless I'm being:
Richard G. Riley wrote:[color=blue]
> On 2006-03-26, John Bode <john_bode@my-deja.com> wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > Richard G. Riley wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> On 2006-03-26, Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthl ink.net> wrote:
> >> > newgoat wrote:
> >> >> As far as I understand, in "int arr[10]", the name of the integer array
> >> >> "arr"
> >> >> is equivalent to the pointer to the first element of the array. But is
> >> >> "arr"
> >> >> really a pointer, identical as "int *arr;" ?
> >> >
> >> > No. This question is so dead and boring it makes the parrot look
> >> > lively. Do you imagine you are the first with this thought? It is to
> >> > avoid repeatedly answering such things that we have a FAQ
> >> ><http://c-faq.com/>. Please check it before posting.
> >>
> >> I assume you will be as rude to everyone else in this NG whose
> >> questions are already answered in the FAQ and the Ansi Standard?[/color]
> >
> > God, I hope so.[/color]
>
> Then you need to step back and reconsider.
>[/color]
Why? It's just a fracking newsgroup, for frack's sake.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Since
> >> that's about 99.9% of them (since we're constantly told you cant ask
> >> programming questions here - only pure C ones), then I suspect you'll
> >> be a busy little bee.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > The focus of this newsgroup is the C programming language, not
> > applications that just happen to be written in C. Why is that so hard
> > for people to understand?[/color]
>
> What was not "C" in the OP?
>[/color]
I wasn't responding to the OP, I was responding to your statement that
"you can't ask programming questions here - only pure C ones." You're
too busy being so goddamned offended on other people's behalf to pay
attention to what I'm saying.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Wouldn't it have been so much nicer of you to say:
> >>
> >> "Good morning, this issue confuses a lot of C prgroammers. Here is a
> >> link to the FAQ which might help".
> >>
> >> Because one thing is common knowledge and "boring" to you, doesnt mean
> >> it is to someone new who comes here for help. If that is your attitude
> >> then I suggest you don't bother trying to help.
> >>
> >> Have a good day now[/color]
> >
> > I've been following this newsgroup since around 1994, and I have to[/color]
>
> The old "long term service medal" does not wash. Sorry.[/color]
Quit interrupting. It's *rude*. And you missed the point.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > say, after 12 years of people asking the same exact questions the same
> > exact way, it's hard to stay civil. And people have good days and
> > bad[/color]
>
> Then dont respond. Let someone else who is less bored respond. By your
> rational there is no need for beginners guides because C has been
> around for so long.
>[/color]
Hey, guess what? I didn't respond to the OP. I thought Martin had
done an adequate job in that respect. I was responding to *you*.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > days; I've seen Martin be just as pleasant as you wished everyone would
> > be.[/color]
>
> So what? Was he here? Sorry, but that doesnt in any way justify his
> reply to someone who came here in good faith looking for help. The
> first name terms suggest a certain affiliation with him : this is
> maybe the type of clique to which I referred.
>[/color]
What the hell else am I going to call him? "Mr. Ambuhl?" "His Nibs?"
"That guy? Who wrote that article?" Referring to him by the name he
actually uses for posting here isn't being "cliquey" or familiar.
Jeez.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > It is simply a part of usenet etiquette to lurk a while, see if your[/color]
>
> For you. Some people come hre to get an answer and then depart. If you
> dont want to , or cant, help the ignore if you have nothing civil to say.
>[/color]
QUIT INTERRUPTING. IT'S RUDE.
And no, it's *not* just for me. It is accepted usenet etiquette for
*everyone*; you, me, and everyone else. Usenet is not a quickie
reference manual; it is not the place to go when you want an answer
*now*.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > question has already been addressed (through the wonders of Google
> > search), and read the newsgroup FAQ if one exists. Given that the FAQ
> > for this particular newsgroup gets posted twice a month, it's not
> > entirely unreasonable to be annoyed when someone asks a question that
> > it addresses.[/color]
>
> It is totally unreasonable. Not everyone is here for a month "lurking"
> before they post. Not all usenet servers duplicate all posts.[/color]
Which brings us, again, to the wonders of Google, and this wonderful
technology known as "searching the archive." If you're smart enough to
post here in the first place, you're smart enough to do a search.
Google does a pretty damned good job archiving, and you should be able
to find the FAQ easily enough.
Go to comp.lang.c in Google groups, type FAQ in the search box, and
whammo, second link down is the latest FAQ entry.
This is not hard. It's not unreasonable to expect everyone who comes
to this group to first do a search, which will likely get them the
answer they need faster than waiting for a response.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >
> > It's also hard to stay pleasant with all the self-appointed 'net
> > nannies boo-hooing about how *rude* we're all being.
> >[/color]
>
> The last paragraph is particularly telling.
>[/color]
Yeah. You're at least forty times more annoying than any random
clueless newbie.
[color=blue]
> Its really simple : if you can and want to then "help". If not,
> dont. There is nothing that ruins a thread more than the usual
> suspects piling in with their "read the fucking FAQ" type posts when
> other more tolerant posters have posted a link or help directly.
>[/color]
And guess what I didn't do. Again, I was responding to *you*, not the
OP.
[color=blue]
> If you dont't see that that you should take a break.[/color]
Here's my posting history. Tell me how useless I'm being:
Comment