From -1837159212587118097 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e94695845965b249 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-12-07 04:16:53 PST Path: sparky!uunet!mdcbbs!swordfish!alanb Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons Message-ID: From: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins) Date: 07 Dec 92 09:49:09 GMT References: <1992Nov30.195202.14370@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1992Dec1.072440.824@jyu.fi><1992Dec1.175548.16232@meaddata.com><1992Dec03.200934.26919@microsoft.com> Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK Nntp-Posting-Host: 134.244.153.110 In-reply-to: jimad@microsoft.com's message of 03 Dec 92 20:09:34 GMT Lines: 15 >>>>> On 03 Dec 92 20:09:34 GMT, jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) said: > | I don't think that requiring total ordering would break any existing > |program, but it would break quite a few existing compilers. > You think wrong. To quote from the ANSI-C rationale, existing implementations > don't matter -- existing CODE does. MUCH existing code depends on partial > ordering. And NOT just on PCs. Then why have no examples been shown? -- Alan Braggins, alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com, abraggins@cix.compulink.co.uk Shape Data - A division of EDS-Scicon Limited. Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673 "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."