Re: Lets put it another way

From:

"Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Wed, 25 May 2011 23:58:54 +0100

Message-ID:

<ZQfDp.10309$2E6.8344@newsfe18.ams2>

"Vidar Hasfjord" <vattilah-groups@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d844847c-9b85-474a-838d-fcadcd18ef3b@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

On May 24, 2:14 am, "Paul" <pchris...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Ok in connection to my previous post, lets remove the null pointer issue
and
consider this:

#include <iostream>

typedef int (*pparr)[3];

int main(){
pparr p1 = (pparr)new int[3];
pparr p2= p1;
delete[] p1;
std::cout<< *p2<<std::endl;
std::cout<< typeid(*p2).name();

}

Unfortunately, as others have remarked, even this latest attempt of
yours to discuss the finer points of arrays and pointers in C++ may
fail due to confusion about your terminology.

What terminology confuses you?

Also, to eliminate all the non-consequential quirks of the built-in
legacy array from the discussion, consider using the new regular
std::array to illustrate your points, e.g.:

typedef std::array <int, 3>* pa;

int main () {
   pa p1 = new std::array <int, 3>;
   pa p2 = p1;
   delete p1;
   std::cout << *p2 << std::endl; // UB!
   std::cout << typeid (*p2).name ();
}

If an issue does not apply equally to std::array, it is merely legacy
baggage from C and nothing fundamental to the C++ type system.

My C++ compiler does not support this.