From: yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 10/10/07, Jenda Krynicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: yitzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The purpose of my message was to clarify the part of the documentation > > that > > > Kaushal asked about. > > > > I think you failed on that. > > > I would think that Kaushal would be the one making that decision. > In case you did not understand, the clarification was made for Kaushal, not > you.
That's why I said "I think you failed". > > I am aware that Perl has pointers/references, as I mentioned, but the > > > question is not /about/ pointers, but variables. > > > > Then why did you start about C pointers? Why the C at the all? The > > int variables in C work exactly the same scalars work in Perl and the > > C pointers work (almost) exactly the same as the references in Perl. > > > It was to heighten the contrast. I am sorry you had issues understand > this. You might have highened the contrast without using a different language. If I ask about some problem with English grammar, will you employ French to point out the differences? Without having at least a hint that I might actually know French? Someone who understands C and pointers would not need to ask the question, that's why I think you only confused the OP by ading yet another syntax. > And BTW ... you are aware of the fact that if you do > > > > int *b; > > *b = 5; > > > > you cause the program to crash, right? > > You did not start by assigning a variable to a reference to > > something, you assigned to the thing already referenced by a > > variable. And unlike Perl, C doesn't "autovivify" the pointer. It > > doesn't notice that the b doesn't point to anything yet and doesn't > > initialize the pointer. And will try to access the address 0. > > > Yes, I am aware. Then all is well. > Are you aware that the purpose of my email was not to give working code, but > to explain a concept? > Is it so important that the code be current to the point of not achieving > its purpose? Because if I did get detailed, my message would have had a > lesser chance of being helpful by being more confusing. I seriously doubt it. Too many words may get confusing, too few are. > If you need evidence, I can supply you with ample working C code I wrote. I > can also supply Perl code, if I require evidence to post to this group in an > attempt to help out members. No need to. Your message looked to me as a fairly confused attempt of someone that finds the concept of pointers/references too hard. Which is something like a pet peeve for me ... I can't understand how can someone who can't understand pointers be programming. It's not your case, so I stand corrected. > Can you supply evidence of your messages being helpful in the past? Google's your friend, the mailing list is mirrored on Google groups. And archived on a few more places. As are several other mailing lists. > > The documentation seems to be contrasting variables to pointers. Rather > > than > > > introducing perl references, I thought I could use a bit of C to explain > > how > > > it is possible that by changing $b, you affect $a, and then say with > > normal > > > Perl variables (I know, the word "normal" is wrong) do not exhibit this > > > behavior. > > > > This might make some sense if Kaushal knew C already. And I don't > > think it's the case. > > > Very good! Exactly why I didn't bother get detailed. It was only intended to > illustrate a concept! Sorry, it's when someone knows the language you use as the illustration when you don't have to bother getting detailed. Jenda ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED] === http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz ===== When it comes to wine, women and song, wizards are allowed to get drunk and croon as much as they like. -- Terry Pratchett in Sourcery -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/
