On 11/13/21 4:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:08:34 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/21 3:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:43:50 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A pointer is a iterator
>>>
>>> No!
>>>
>>> An iterator IS LIKE A pointer.
>>>
>>> Your wrongness remains fractal in nature, dear.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> A pointer is a somewhat specific type of category of things called an
>> iterator.
>
> Not according to the C++ Standard which is what matters if we are
> talking about the definition of terms within the context of the C++
> language.
>
>>
>> This is expressed more concisely in the language as
>>
>> A pointer is a iterator.
>
> If you can point me to where in the C++ Standard that is explicitly
> stated then I will stand down.
>
>>
>> That is the definition of the IS-A relationship.
>
> I am well aware of what an IS-A relationship is, dear.
>
> /Flibble
>

A Pointer passes the various iterator concept tests, thus, by the only
definition of what an iterator is in the Standard, a pointer IS an iterator.

On 11/13/2021 2:38 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:32:57 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/21 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2021 2:04 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2021 8:59 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> You are incorrect. The halting problem as currently defined is
>>>>>> basically
>>>>>> a category error; recursive definitions are bogus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the only other person that ever noticed this. As it turns
>>>>> out this recursive definition is simply decidable as never
>>>>> halting.
>>>>
>>>> You've noticed nothing. Both Mr. Flibble and you are cranks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/23/2020 7:42 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> > I said I didn't dispute that however the Standard clearly states
>>> > that iterators are abstractions of pointers; a pointer isn't an
>>> > iterator because a thing can't be an abstraction of itself; the
>>> > exact wording from the Standard is:
>>> >
>>> > 23.3.1 (ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 N4860)
>>> >
>>> > "Since iterators are an abstraction of pointers, their semantics
>>> > are a generalization of most of the semantics of
>>> > pointers in C++. This ensures that every function template that
>>> > takes iterators works as well with regular
>>> > pointers."
>>> >
>>> > /Flibble
>>> >
>>>
>>
>> Small point, that statement is wrong. Because Iterators are an
>> abstraction of pointers, pointers are most certainly a thing that is
>> an instance of that abstract category iterators.
>>
>> Problem with use of words. Here 'is a' means members of the category,
>> like a Ford F-150 is a Truck.
>
> Your wrongness appears to fractal in nature, dear. A thing cannot be an
> abstraction of itself, end of. A POINTER IS AN ABSTRACTION OF A POINTER
> MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE. Now fuck off.
>
> /Flibble
>

iterators are abstractions of pointers
iterators are the general idea of which pointers are a concrete instance

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:

> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 21:39:24 +0000
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>
>> > Definition of the halting problem (from Wikipedia):
>> >
>> > For any program f that might determine if programs halt, a
>> > "pathological" program g, called with some input, can
>> > pass its own source and its input to f and then
>> > specifically do the opposite of what f predicts g will
>> > do. No f can exist that handles this case.
>> >
>> > The reason no f can exist for the case described is because it
>> > involves an INVALID infinite recursion and NOT because a general
>> > algorithm that can answer the question as to whether a program and
>> > its given input halts or runs for ever cannot exist.
>>
>> There is no recursion in Turing machines. The construction of g is a
>> trivial matter of adding a few states and transitions to f.
>
> False.
>
>> And there are lots of undecidable problems. Do they all have some
>> mysterious category of invalid instances? Does the problem of
>> deciding if a context-free grammar is ambiguous have some set of
>> invalid grammars that render the problem undecidable? (These are
>> rhetorical questions -- the answer is no in all cases.)
>
> You appear to be agreeing with me without actually realizing it which
> suggests you are fucking clueless about what you are actually saying.

Ah. The style, if not the content, makes your position very clear. I
think we understand each other.

--
Ben.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:39:19 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/13/21 4:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:08:34 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/13/21 3:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:43:50 -0500
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> A pointer is a iterator
> >>>
> >>> No!
> >>>
> >>> An iterator IS LIKE A pointer.
> >>>
> >>> Your wrongness remains fractal in nature, dear.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> A pointer is a somewhat specific type of category of things called
> >> an iterator.
> >
> > Not according to the C++ Standard which is what matters if we are
> > talking about the definition of terms within the context of the C++
> > language.
> >
> >>
> >> This is expressed more concisely in the language as
> >>
> >> A pointer is a iterator.
> >
> > If you can point me to where in the C++ Standard that is explicitly
> > stated then I will stand down.
> >
> >>
> >> That is the definition of the IS-A relationship.
> >
> > I am well aware of what an IS-A relationship is, dear.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> A Pointer passes the various iterator concept tests, thus, by the
> only definition of what an iterator is in the Standard, a pointer IS
> an iterator.

If you think the following syllogism is valid then you are beyond help.

* iterator is an abstraction of pointer
* pointer is an iterator
* therefore pointer is an abstraction of pointer

/Flibble

On 11/14/21 12:19 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:39:19 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/21 4:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:08:34 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/13/21 3:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:43:50 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A pointer is a iterator
>>>>>
>>>>> No!
>>>>>
>>>>> An iterator IS LIKE A pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your wrongness remains fractal in nature, dear.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A pointer is a somewhat specific type of category of things called
>>>> an iterator.
>>>
>>> Not according to the C++ Standard which is what matters if we are
>>> talking about the definition of terms within the context of the C++
>>> language.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is expressed more concisely in the language as
>>>>
>>>> A pointer is a iterator.
>>>
>>> If you can point me to where in the C++ Standard that is explicitly
>>> stated then I will stand down.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is the definition of the IS-A relationship.
>>>
>>> I am well aware of what an IS-A relationship is, dear.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> A Pointer passes the various iterator concept tests, thus, by the
>> only definition of what an iterator is in the Standard, a pointer IS
>> an iterator.
>
> If you think the following syllogism is valid then you are beyond help.
>
> * iterator is an abstraction of pointer
> * pointer is an iterator
> * therefore pointer is an abstraction of pointer
>
> /Flibble
>

You are mixing definitions of 'is a' here, which is why the syllogism
doesn't work.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 06:53:10 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/14/21 12:19 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:39:19 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/13/21 4:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:08:34 -0500
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/13/21 3:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:43:50 -0500
> >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A pointer is a iterator
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An iterator IS LIKE A pointer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your wrongness remains fractal in nature, dear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A pointer is a somewhat specific type of category of things
> >>>> called an iterator.
> >>>
> >>> Not according to the C++ Standard which is what matters if we are
> >>> talking about the definition of terms within the context of the
> >>> C++ language.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is expressed more concisely in the language as
> >>>>
> >>>> A pointer is a iterator.
> >>>
> >>> If you can point me to where in the C++ Standard that is
> >>> explicitly stated then I will stand down.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That is the definition of the IS-A relationship.
> >>>
> >>> I am well aware of what an IS-A relationship is, dear.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> A Pointer passes the various iterator concept tests, thus, by the
> >> only definition of what an iterator is in the Standard, a pointer
> >> IS an iterator.
> >
> > If you think the following syllogism is valid then you are beyond
> > help.
> >
> > * iterator is an abstraction of pointer
> > * pointer is an iterator
> > * therefore pointer is an abstraction of pointer
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> You are mixing definitions of 'is a' here, which is why the syllogism
> doesn't work.

No I am not because I am not using the OOP relationship is-a at all in
the syllogism: I am just using plain English just like the C++ Standard
does in the cited passage.

/Flibble

On 11/14/21 8:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 06:53:10 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/21 12:19 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:39:19 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/13/21 4:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:08:34 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/21 3:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:43:50 -0500
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A pointer is a iterator
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An iterator IS LIKE A pointer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your wrongness remains fractal in nature, dear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A pointer is a somewhat specific type of category of things
>>>>>> called an iterator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to the C++ Standard which is what matters if we are
>>>>> talking about the definition of terms within the context of the
>>>>> C++ language.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is expressed more concisely in the language as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A pointer is a iterator.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can point me to where in the C++ Standard that is
>>>>> explicitly stated then I will stand down.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the definition of the IS-A relationship.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am well aware of what an IS-A relationship is, dear.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A Pointer passes the various iterator concept tests, thus, by the
>>>> only definition of what an iterator is in the Standard, a pointer
>>>> IS an iterator.
>>>
>>> If you think the following syllogism is valid then you are beyond
>>> help.
>>>
>>> * iterator is an abstraction of pointer
>>> * pointer is an iterator
>>> * therefore pointer is an abstraction of pointer
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> You are mixing definitions of 'is a' here, which is why the syllogism
>> doesn't work.
>
> No I am not because I am not using the OOP relationship is-a at all in
> the syllogism: I am just using plain English just like the C++ Standard
> does in the cited passage.
>
> /Flibble
>

Then what is the problem?

First Statement, An Iterator is an ABSTRACTION of a pointer.

An ABSTRACTION is something more general in scope then the thing it is
an astraction of. You could sort of say that a Mammal is an abstraction
of a Cat (not quite right, but the genearl idea).

There are many possible ways to abstract a poiter, and an iterator is
one of them.

Then a pointer is a iterator, still makes sense as a pointer is a more
specific instance of the types of thing called iterators.

Seems to make sense

Just like Mammals are a king of generalization of Cats,
Cats are a kind of Mammal.

The term abstraction ands the needed meaning that makes the circle work.

Pointer -> abstract to an Iterator

Iterator -> one kind of is Pointer.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 12:32:05 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/14/21 8:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 06:53:10 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/14/21 12:19 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:39:19 -0500
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/13/21 4:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:08:34 -0500
> >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/13/21 3:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:43:50 -0500
> >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A pointer is a iterator
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> An iterator IS LIKE A pointer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your wrongness remains fractal in nature, dear.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A pointer is a somewhat specific type of category of things
> >>>>>> called an iterator.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not according to the C++ Standard which is what matters if we
> >>>>> are talking about the definition of terms within the context of
> >>>>> the C++ language.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is expressed more concisely in the language as
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A pointer is a iterator.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you can point me to where in the C++ Standard that is
> >>>>> explicitly stated then I will stand down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is the definition of the IS-A relationship.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am well aware of what an IS-A relationship is, dear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A Pointer passes the various iterator concept tests, thus, by the
> >>>> only definition of what an iterator is in the Standard, a pointer
> >>>> IS an iterator.
> >>>
> >>> If you think the following syllogism is valid then you are beyond
> >>> help.
> >>>
> >>> * iterator is an abstraction of pointer
> >>> * pointer is an iterator
> >>> * therefore pointer is an abstraction of pointer
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> You are mixing definitions of 'is a' here, which is why the
> >> syllogism doesn't work.
> >
> > No I am not because I am not using the OOP relationship is-a at all
> > in the syllogism: I am just using plain English just like the C++
> > Standard does in the cited passage.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Then what is the problem?
>
> First Statement, An Iterator is an ABSTRACTION of a pointer.
>
> An ABSTRACTION is something more general in scope then the thing it
> is an astraction of. You could sort of say that a Mammal is an
> abstraction of a Cat (not quite right, but the genearl idea).
>
> There are many possible ways to abstract a poiter, and an iterator is
> one of them.
>
> Then a pointer is a iterator, still makes sense as a pointer is a
> more specific instance of the types of thing called iterators.
>
> Seems to make sense
>
> Just like Mammals are a king of generalization of Cats,
> Cats are a kind of Mammal.
>
> The term abstraction ands the needed meaning that makes the circle
> work.
>
> Pointer -> abstract to an Iterator
>
> Iterator -> one kind of is Pointer.

In C++ not all types of iterators are generalizations of pointers:
ForwardIterator cannot do operator--() for example.

/Flibble

On 11/14/21 3:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 12:32:05 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/21 8:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 06:53:10 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/14/21 12:19 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:39:19 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/21 4:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:08:34 -0500
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/21 3:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:43:50 -0500
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A pointer is a iterator
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An iterator IS LIKE A pointer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your wrongness remains fractal in nature, dear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A pointer is a somewhat specific type of category of things
>>>>>>>> called an iterator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not according to the C++ Standard which is what matters if we
>>>>>>> are talking about the definition of terms within the context of
>>>>>>> the C++ language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is expressed more concisely in the language as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A pointer is a iterator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can point me to where in the C++ Standard that is
>>>>>>> explicitly stated then I will stand down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the definition of the IS-A relationship.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am well aware of what an IS-A relationship is, dear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Pointer passes the various iterator concept tests, thus, by the
>>>>>> only definition of what an iterator is in the Standard, a pointer
>>>>>> IS an iterator.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think the following syllogism is valid then you are beyond
>>>>> help.
>>>>>
>>>>> * iterator is an abstraction of pointer
>>>>> * pointer is an iterator
>>>>> * therefore pointer is an abstraction of pointer
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are mixing definitions of 'is a' here, which is why the
>>>> syllogism doesn't work.
>>>
>>> No I am not because I am not using the OOP relationship is-a at all
>>> in the syllogism: I am just using plain English just like the C++
>>> Standard does in the cited passage.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Then what is the problem?
>>
>> First Statement, An Iterator is an ABSTRACTION of a pointer.
>>
>> An ABSTRACTION is something more general in scope then the thing it
>> is an astraction of. You could sort of say that a Mammal is an
>> abstraction of a Cat (not quite right, but the genearl idea).
>>
>> There are many possible ways to abstract a poiter, and an iterator is
>> one of them.
>>
>> Then a pointer is a iterator, still makes sense as a pointer is a
>> more specific instance of the types of thing called iterators.
>>
>> Seems to make sense
>>
>> Just like Mammals are a king of generalization of Cats,
>> Cats are a kind of Mammal.
>>
>> The term abstraction ands the needed meaning that makes the circle
>> work.
>>
>> Pointer -> abstract to an Iterator
>>
>> Iterator -> one kind of is Pointer.
>
> In C++ not all types of iterators are generalizations of pointers:
> ForwardIterator cannot do operator--() for example.
>
> /Flibble
>

But a generalization of something doesn't necessarily do everything the
specific does.

A motor vehicle is a generalization of a formula 1 racing car, but not
all motor vehicles go as fast as the racing car.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 15:34:58 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/14/21 3:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 12:32:05 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/14/21 8:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 06:53:10 -0500
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/14/21 12:19 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:39:19 -0500
> >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/13/21 4:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:08:34 -0500
> >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/13/21 3:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:43:50 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A pointer is a iterator
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> An iterator IS LIKE A pointer.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your wrongness remains fractal in nature, dear.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A pointer is a somewhat specific type of category of things
> >>>>>>>> called an iterator.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not according to the C++ Standard which is what matters if we
> >>>>>>> are talking about the definition of terms within the context
> >>>>>>> of the C++ language.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is expressed more concisely in the language as
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A pointer is a iterator.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you can point me to where in the C++ Standard that is
> >>>>>>> explicitly stated then I will stand down.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is the definition of the IS-A relationship.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am well aware of what an IS-A relationship is, dear.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A Pointer passes the various iterator concept tests, thus, by
> >>>>>> the only definition of what an iterator is in the Standard, a
> >>>>>> pointer IS an iterator.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you think the following syllogism is valid then you are
> >>>>> beyond help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * iterator is an abstraction of pointer
> >>>>> * pointer is an iterator
> >>>>> * therefore pointer is an abstraction of pointer
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You are mixing definitions of 'is a' here, which is why the
> >>>> syllogism doesn't work.
> >>>
> >>> No I am not because I am not using the OOP relationship is-a at
> >>> all in the syllogism: I am just using plain English just like the
> >>> C++ Standard does in the cited passage.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Then what is the problem?
> >>
> >> First Statement, An Iterator is an ABSTRACTION of a pointer.
> >>
> >> An ABSTRACTION is something more general in scope then the thing it
> >> is an astraction of. You could sort of say that a Mammal is an
> >> abstraction of a Cat (not quite right, but the genearl idea).
> >>
> >> There are many possible ways to abstract a poiter, and an iterator
> >> is one of them.
> >>
> >> Then a pointer is a iterator, still makes sense as a pointer is a
> >> more specific instance of the types of thing called iterators.
> >>
> >> Seems to make sense
> >>
> >> Just like Mammals are a king of generalization of Cats,
> >> Cats are a kind of Mammal.
> >>
> >> The term abstraction ands the needed meaning that makes the circle
> >> work.
> >>
> >> Pointer -> abstract to an Iterator
> >>
> >> Iterator -> one kind of is Pointer.
> >
> > In C++ not all types of iterators are generalizations of pointers:
> > ForwardIterator cannot do operator--() for example.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> But a generalization of something doesn't necessarily do everything
> the specific does.
>
> A motor vehicle is a generalization of a formula 1 racing car, but
> not all motor vehicles go as fast as the racing car.

Different types of iterators support a different subset of pointer
operations which is why it is incorrect to say pointer is-a iterator.

/Flibble