Robin2:
See Reply #33We have wasted enough bandwith and server storage on this.
...R
Hmmm, it doesn't seem like you really know what you are trying to explain.
Why don't you do a big favor and justify these two statements you have made, then possibly your other wavelength may come to light:
I know that an array will cast to a pointer. What I don't understand is why a simple variable will not also cast to a pointer?
and
why would I want the address of a simple variable? If it is a simple variable just assume I want the value.
?????? Seriously what is going on, I'm quite intrigued!
All of your posts repeat the same thing over and over, then you answer your own question. If you wrote the wrong thing, this isn't a different wavelength, it is bad communication.
Why don't you try and explain what your gripe is in more than two sentences.
Or if you are waiting for people to simply agree with you, regardless of how many logical explanations are put forward, then you are simply just trolling (in which case you don't really agree with what you are writing).
Don't worry about bandwidth, the forum admin certainly don't, did you know that an open forum page checks for new alerts every 10 seconds. Multiply this by everyone online, and a few posts really are insignificant.
I would really like to know what the hidden meaning is in your quotes:
However if the system was consistent you would also be required to use &myArray when you want the address of the array. Using myArray with neither an & nor a subscript should cause an error.
OK. Then my question is why didn't they make it so that the same shortcut works with the simple variable myVar? (i.e. so the & is not needed)
I know that an array will cast to a pointer. What I don't understand is why a simple variable will not also cast to a pointer?
...
it makes even less sense for the compiler not to also cast an ordinary variable name to a pointer when it is "used in an expression that accepts a pointer as an operand"
Answered here & here & here & by yourself
I think the difference between us is that you are describing HOW C/C++ works whereas I am asking WHY does it work like that (because it seems to me to be inconsistent).
Another way that this "inconsistency" could be avoided would be if it was necessary to do an explicit cast to a pointer for an Array as well as for a simple variable.
And this is answered in pretty much every post in response to your questions. The reasons explaining this contain both how C++ works and why it works this way. I have also explained the consequences of why it wouldn't work if things were how you'd prefer.
Simply, what you would like to see, you yourself have given a reason as to why adding the functionality you would like is silly regardless of how consistent you think it could be. And I have given compelling evidence as to why things wouldn't work if we removed what you don't like.