array

[buuuuuum]

why array can't be assigned, like structs?

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:

<http://groups.google.com/support/bin/topic.py?topic=9246>

What would Google know about newsgroups?

He's a Google user, he ought to be at least familiar with their
help section.

Yeah. What he might not realise from reading Google's help pages is
that newsgroups are not a Google product, but a well-established
on-line society to which Google has attached itself like a remora.

Did you actually READ the link I provided?

Yes, actually. Hence "might not" rather than "will not".

There is no document that can't be misinterpreted by a sufficiently
stupid reader. The one I pointed to was clear enough in my mind for the
designated purpose.


Brian

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

On 10 Mar 2007 08:10:53 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "Harald van D?k"
<tr*****@gmail.comwrote:

>>You snipped too much. You claimed that an array isn't a type, and that
that is the reason it has to be different.

You apparently mentally snipped too much, for the distinction I was
drawing was between a simple and derived type.

That distinction is irrelevant in this case.

You claimed that array types are not types. You were wrong.

>>And I showed that you /can/ assign to a struct using that same method.

So what? As I've said ad nauseam, you can't prove it by example, only
disprove by counterexample.

Fine, forget about examples and counterexamples.

int is a non-derived type. The language supports assignment for type int.

void is a non-derived type. The language does not support assignment
for type void.

A structure type is a derived type. The language supports assignment
for structure types.

An array type is a derived type. The language does not support
assignment for array types.

Conclusion: The fact that assignment is not supported for array types
has nothing to do with the fact that array types are derived types.
You claimed that there was a relationship. You were incorrect.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:04:54 -0800, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>>Mark, you could save us all a great deal of time and trouble if, every
now and then, you'd just admit when you've made a mistake.

I would, if I thought I had. I don't think I have.

Is an array type a type? You said upthread that it isn't.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:05:49 -0800, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

>>On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:31:40 -0800, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:

Yes, it would have been clearer. It would also have been correct,
which your original statement quite simply was not.

My original statement was absolutely correct, An array is a derived
type.

One of your original statements was that an array is a derived type.
That's absolutely correct, and nobody has claimed otherwise.

Another of your original statements was that an array is not a type.
That's wrong; an array is a type.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZhbiBExLNr?=]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 10 Mar 2007 08:10:53 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "Harald van D?k"
<tr*****@gmail.comwrote:

You snipped too much. You claimed that an array isn't a type, and that
that is the reason it has to be different.

You apparently mentally snipped too much, for the distinction I was
drawing was between a simple and derived type.

You're probably confusing me with some others in this thread. I
treated "isn't a type" as "isn't a simple type" in my replies. Please
re-read my message.

And I showed that you /can/ assign to a struct using that same method.

So what? As I've said ad nauseam, you can't prove it by example, only
disprove by counterexample.

It disproved your claim that you cannot assign to a struct using that
same method.

What you probably meant, is that I cannot prove that it applies to /
all/ structure types using just an example. If that's not what you
meant, you're wrong.

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

<snip>

There is no document that can't be misinterpreted by a sufficiently
stupid reader. The one I pointed to was clear enough in my mind for
the designated purpose.

Ah, but then you are not a sufficiently stupid reader!

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[CBFalconer]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

>

.... snip ...

--
"...Almost makes you wonder why Heisenberg didn't include postinc/dec
operators in the uncertainty principle. Which of course makes the
above equivalent to Schrodinger's pointer..."
--Anthony McDonald

Didn't Schroedinger kept a sealpoint cat, rather than a dog. :-)

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

<snip>

There is no document that can't be misinterpreted by a sufficiently
stupid reader. The one I pointed to was clear enough in my mind for
the designated purpose.

Ah, but then you are not a sufficiently stupid reader!

The point was that the information I provided, even though it came from
Google, was pretty decent for a brief overview.


Brian