sam fisher
Well-Known Member
Thats one hell of a pointernickspoon posted on Dec 7 2006 at 08:26 PM said:char********** string[20];
I think I found the tenth dimension, and there are definitely strings. :blink:
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats one hell of a pointernickspoon posted on Dec 7 2006 at 08:26 PM said:char********** string[20];
I think I found the tenth dimension, and there are definitely strings. :blink:
god.Shikaku posted on Dec 7 2006 at 09:12 PM said:nickspoon posted on Dec 7 2006 at 03:26 PM said:char********** string[20];
I think I found the tenth dimension, and there are definitely strings. :blink:
Wouldn't it be... char[][][][][][][][][][] string?
But still lawl programming joke.
They do? I know that if you pass an array as an argument to a function that a pointer is passed to the original array :unsure:m8ex posted on Dec 5 2006 at 07:07 PM said:But if you double the size two times it will be four times bigger. (Xx2x2=4X) basic mathDaveC posted on Dec 5 2006 at 07:58 PM said:m8ex posted on Dec 5 2006 at 06:47 PM said:No thats 4 times bigger than the original.
Well it is still doubled, but in both x and y directions. It is basically 2:1 scaling.
^smilie
Hanz™ posted on Dec 8 2006 at 12:45 PM said:god.
don't be a moron.
arrays and pointers go hand in hand.
Shikaku posted on Dec 8 2006 at 02:58 PM said:Hanz™ posted on Dec 8 2006 at 12:45 PM said:god.
don't be a moron.
arrays and pointers go hand in hand.
<--- Java programmer.
I wouldn't know a C pointer even if you slapped me with it.
sam fisher posted on Dec 8 2006 at 05:09 PM said:*Throws a 3 dimensional array at Loubear*
saehn posted on Dec 3 2006 at 08:29 PM said:Look at this way: the vector introduced in dimension N+1 is simultaneously perpendicular to all vectors existing in the Nth dimension.
Bingo Jesus posted on Dec 9 2006 at 05:50 AM said:Don't let my lecturer hear you saying that, you most certainly don't need an orthonormal basis for a vector space. The just have to be linearly independent.
It has.... I thought it just used neurotransmitters, and they don't work backwards in time :unsure:PSyMastR posted on Dec 9 2006 at 05:05 AM said:Quantum physics has been able to theorize that our brains work backwards in time.
sam fisher posted on Dec 10 2006 at 09:48 AM said:It has.... I thought it just used neurotransmitters, and they don't work backwards in time :unsure:PSyMastR posted on Dec 9 2006 at 05:05 AM said:Quantum physics has been able to theorize that our brains work backwards in time.
