home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh
- From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
- Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
- Message-ID: <9235622.25712@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU
- Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
- References: <1992Dec9.133956.29659@lth.se> <1992Dec9.191606.5665@lucid.com> <BzCG7K.2sG@frumious.uucp> <1992Dec18.192202.17023@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:06:35 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
-
- >pat@frumious.uucp (Patrick Smith) writes:
- >> p == q => ptrcmp(p,q) == 0
- >
- > I'm NOT agreeing with this at present. I reject any relationship
- >between p ? q and ptrcmp. On some machines any such relationship
- >might make ptrcmp unimplementable, and thus defeat the proposal completely.
-
- I remain unconvinced that such a relationship is unimplementable on
- some machines.
-
- >It is only Jims suggestion that ptrcmp might always return 0 that
- >makes it possible to make its existence mandatory.
-
- A ptrcmp that always returned 0 would be useless, IMHO.
-
- --
- Fergus Henderson fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU
- This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but
- you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
- .signature file!
-