From -6758825402697479729
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e94695845965b249
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-10-22 17:04:36 PST
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
Message-ID: <23978@alice.att.com>
Date: 23 Oct 92 01:33:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23978
References: <23915@alice.att.com> <1992Oct19.055511.18826@jyu.fi> <23937@alice.att.com> <1992Oct22.180951.24111@jyu.fi>
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 13

In article <1992Oct22.180951.24111@jyu.fi> sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:

> Thus, while Jim Adcock, in the posting to which you had originally replied,
> was quite happy with the situation as is, you would be in favour of a change
> in the standard to make pointer types totally ordered?

Yes, I would.  Of course, my preference may not count for all that much,
given the number of machines out there with segmented architectures.
It would be nice if someone with access to real data could do a
cost/benefit analysis.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com