J
junky_fellow
Keith Thompson said:
So, can we say a function pointer to be an object ?
So, can we say a function pointer to be an object ?
M
Mabden
Not in English.
K
Keith Thompson
Yes. (BTW, please trim any quoted text that's not relevant to your
question.)
E
E. Robert Tisdale
junky_fellow said:
A function is an object.
A pointer to that function is another object.
F
Flash Gordon
Not according to the C standard according to what the more knowledgeable
people around here have said.
Yes, a pointer to a function is an object.
J
Joe Wright
E. Robert Tisdale said:
Pray tell where you find a function described as an object in C.
E
E. Robert Tisdale
Joe said:
I used Google
http://www.google.com/
to search for
+"functions are objects" +"C programming"
A
Arthur J. O'Dwyer
For the record: Functions are /not/ objects in C. However,
pointers are objects, be they pointers to functions or pointers
to data.
(It's been a while since the last blatant troll of Tisdale's,
so I expect we have a crop of newbies who might assume Tisdale
wasn't being maliciously wrong in his statements. FYI, he's a
well-known regular in c.l.c---please just ignore his ravings.)
-Arthur
pointers are objects, be they pointers to functions or pointers
to data.
(It's been a while since the last blatant troll of Tisdale's,
so I expect we have a crop of newbies who might assume Tisdale
wasn't being maliciously wrong in his statements. FYI, he's a
well-known regular in c.l.c---please just ignore his ravings.)
-Arthur
E
E. Robert Tisdale
Something said:
You are confused.
The C standards documents are *not*
part of the C computer programming language.
There is no 'object' keyword os standard identifier
in the C computer programming language.
The C standards documents have *nothing* to do with programming in C.
They exist *only* to specify the C computer programming language.
Terms, like object, given special meaning in the standards documents
to help with these specifications,
have *no* meaning outside of the scope of the standards documents
other that those meanings commonly used
in the context of a computer programming language.
Questions (remarks) about the C standards are off-topic in comp.lang.c
There is a more appropriate form for that -- comp.std.c
Please direct all your questions (remarks)
about the C standards documents to the appropriate newsgroup.
K
Keith Thompson
E. Robert Tisdale said:
No, a function is not an object.
Yes.
K
Keith Thompson
E. Robert Tisdale said:
Did you actually look at the results, or did you just count the hits?
I just got 42 hits, and looked at most of the ones on the first page.
All the ones I checked are pages that state that functions are objects
in some language other than C, and also happen to have the phrase "C
programming".
There may well be some web page that claims that functions are objects
in C. If so, it proves nothing except that the author of the page is
mistaken.
Functions are not objects in C.
K
Keith Thompson
E. Robert Tisdale said:
The C standards documents define the C programming language.
Nobody has claimed that there is. There is no "function", "array", or
"pointer" keyword or standard identifier in C; do you conclude from
that that C doesn't have functions, arrays, or pointers?
Utter nonsense.
Yes, of course they specify the C programming language. That makes
them extremely relevant to programming in C (and, equally, to
implementing a C compiler and/or library).
Utter nonsense.
Given a choice of using terms as defined by the C standard (as is the
nearly universal consensus of this newsgroup), or using terms as
defined by E. Robert Tisdale, it's not a difficult decision.
comp.lang.c is for discussion of the C programming language, which is
defined by the C standards. comp.std.c is for discussion of the C
standards *as documents*. "What is an object?" would be an
appropriate question for comp.lang.c; the answer is found in the
standard. "The standard's definition of 'object' is ambiguous" would
be an appropriate topic for comp.std.c. (This is an example, and is
not meant to imply that I think the definition is actually ambiguous.)
Please stop lying to newbies. Those of us who have been here for a
while know enough not to take you seriously, but inexperienced
programmers might not.
C
CBFalconer
E. Robert Tisdale said:
You are getting objectionable again. The C language is defined by
the C standards documents, at least the only form of C discussed
here.
F
Flash Gordon
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 04:15:33 GMT
I'm not actually a newbie, I just don't have a copy of the standard
myself and don't post very often so I left in that I was relying on what
I had read by those I respect
I slightly morphed the name a while back, but not enough to confuse
anyone who knows me (the domain name did not change). A few years
further back I changed domain but not the name I posted under.
I'm not actually a newbie, I just don't have a copy of the standard
myself and don't post very often so I left in that I was relying on what
I had read by those I respect
I slightly morphed the name a while back, but not enough to confuse
anyone who knows me (the domain name did not change). A few years
further back I changed domain but not the name I posted under.
C
CBFalconer
Flash said:I'm not actually a newbie, I just don't have a copy of the standard
myself and don't post very often so I left in that I was relying on
what I had read by those I respect
He wasn't talking about you, but about ERT, whose foibles are well
known here.
F
Flash Gordon
I realised he was talking about ERT lying. My point was that in this
case ERTs drivel was not in response to a newbie but in response to
someone who ahs been around the block a couple of times.
K
Keith Thompson
Flash Gordon said:On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 04:15:33 GMT
I'm not actually a newbie, I just don't have a copy of the standard
myself and don't post very often so I left in that I was relying on what
I had read by those I respect
I slightly morphed the name a while back, but not enough to confuse
anyone who knows me (the domain name did not change). A few years
further back I changed domain but not the name I posted under.
No offense intended. I wasn't referring specifically to you; I hadn't
even noticed that you wrote the article to which ERT was responding.
In effect, everything posted to a newsgroup is addressed to everyone
reading it.
F
Flash Gordon
No offence was taken.
True.
D
Default User
CBFalconer said:
What is it about Trollsdale? It seems he can go only so long before
exploding into a bullshit spew all over the newsgroup.
Brian Rodenborn
J
junky_fellow
Keith Thompson said:
Actually, i have some confusion related to null pointer and function
pointer
and C objects.
suppose, i have a function pointer "fptr" , which is pointing to some
funtion that lie at address 0x0.
i have one more pointer "nptr" which is a null pointer.
(NOTE: Assume that machine that i am using use all-bits-zero as null
pointer)
Also, 0x0 is a valid logical address in the address space of my
application.
+-------+
| fptr |------------------+-> +-------------+ 0x00 ( start address of
function)
+-------+ | | |
function pointer | | |
| | |
| . .
| . .
+-------+ | . .
| nptr |------------------+ . .
+-------+ | |
+-------------+
RAM
1) Now, can i say that my function pointer "fptr" is pointing to some
valid C object ?
2) if i compare my null pointer "nptr" with function pointer "fptr"
(for equality ) will they compare equal ?
3) If they compare equal, and fptr is pointing to some valid object,
that means a null pointer may compare equal to some valid object in C.
But, i had in my
mind that null pointer shouldn't compare equal to any valid C object.
i would be highly grateful, if you all expert don't use highly
technical
terms to explain the doubts. otherwise a newbie get entangled in those
terms
and gets more confused.