From 7138786012167111905 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e94695845965b249 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-12-21 10:42:00 PST 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> <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!