Subject: 1-step plan (DocOz Video)

From: Fight-Fat from the Couch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:56:42 -0700

Dr.Oz begs the question:
"Did you know you can get your body to stop absorbing carbs?"

- Now, for the first time DrOz is presenting the "Carb Blocker" -
- Enjoy: - pasta - bread - pizza  (w/out absorbing the carbs)

View Here: / http://www.toneyear.com/natural/oz/plan.shtml

It will have you losing 230% More... W/Out the gym.

-DrOz Summer Blog

To stop further messages - write -  Updated Notifications Services
at: 115 Hadley Way-C o u n c e, TN 38326 or visit http://www.toneyear.com/4tg/3rf/h6.werofi

Here is a video tutorial that explains difference between lvalue and rvalue expressions - terms crucial for good understanding of references and pointers too): C++ Tutorial (10) on YTA local reference (i.e., one not in a struct or class) does not necessarily allocate storage. You can tell because of the sizeof difference between sizeof(int &) and sizeof(struct the FQA wouldn't be nearly so funny if it didn't contain some germs of truth.I think point 2 should be "A pointer is allowed to be NULL but a reference is not. Only malformed code can create a NULL reference and its behavior is undefined. I guess it still lets a bitter taste for all the F.U.D. and misinformation wrapping the "germs of truth". Novice C++ developers or clueless managers can get caught in FQA web of lies, and then, guess who's trying to make things right?Pointers are just another type of object, and like any object in C++, they can be a variable. References on the other hand are never objects, only variables. This
  compiles without warnings: int &x = *(int*)0; on gcc. Reference can indeed point to NULL.   I'm not sure I agree that "references are syntactic sugar". How would you design copy constructors in your language if you didn't have references? Probably we could take the address of a reference, like the idiom adopted in implementing the assignment operator, i.e. T& T::operator=(const T& rhs) if (this == &rhs) return *this;I don't feel qualified to edit the "clarify a misconception" part of this question, but I think it should be observed that if int i lives in a register for its entire life, the reference isn't likely to be a pointer - it can simply alias the same register.reference is a variable alias  References are not just syntactic sugar: they are ALWAYS in a defined state. This is enforced by the compiler. Pointers have no such guarantee.I like how the very first sentence is a total fallacy. References have their own semantics.