From -695772195676517207 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,221e73cda6c65dc7 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: relational operators and pointers Date: 2000/06/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 637331027 Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ References: <8iog9l$2bo$1@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 961614328 mail2news:13297 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk Organization: Genuity, Cambridge, MA X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Copies-To: never NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:04:00 GMT Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article <8iog9l$2bo$1@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>, Boris wrote: >The C++ Standard says somewhere: >"For templates greater, less, greater_equal, and less_equal, the >specializations for any pointer type yield a total order, even if the >built-in operators <, >, <=, >= do not." >Does this implicitly mean that == and != are ok for comparing pointers no >matter what pointers are compared? Yes. If you couldn't compare pointers to different objects for equality, you would be really screwed. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]