initializing array using pointer

[Keith Thompson]

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

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]

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.

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).

 

[arun]

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).

well kenny thts a whole bag of bull shit

 

[arun]

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.

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

 

[arun]

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.

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.]

.... snip ...

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.

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

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

well kenny thts a whole bag of bull (expletive deleted)

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

 

[Kenny McCormack]

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

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

 

[Mark McIntyre]

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

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;

 

[Default User]

Kenny McCormack wrote:

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

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


Brian

 

[Kenny McCormack]

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

Yes, in the sense that observing and commenting upon the idiocy of some of
the "regulars" could be interpreted as "causing trouble". Yes, agreed.

 

[Richard Bos]

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 would I, were his random interspersions of "Off-topic blah" always
correct. They aren't always, and where they're not, they're actively
harmful, and should be corrected.

Note that in this case, though, my main intent was to support
Christopher (by pointing out that Kenny's remark was irrelevant), not to
contradict Kenny /per se/.

Richard