home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!maxtal
- From: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller)
- Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
- Message-ID: <1992Dec12.155417.2628@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU
- Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au
- Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney
- References: <1992Dec8.103218.27689@lth.se> <9234423.15066@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Dec9.133956.29659@lth.se>
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:54:17 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Dec9.133956.29659@lth.se> dag@seldon.control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes:
- >In <comp.std.c++> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
- >>
- >>What I propose is that we define a *standard library function* which computes
- >>a total ordering on pointers.
- >>
- >>int compare_pointers(const void *, const void *);
- >> /* Returns negative, zero, or positive in the same manner as strcmp().
- >> Perhaps in the interests of tradition and unreadability it should
- >> be called ptrcmp() instead of compare_pointers() :-) */
- >
- >Suggested semantics: for any pointers p and q:
- >
- > p == q <=> ptrcmp(p,q) == 0
-
- Are you SURE you need this? Why should == and ptrcmp
- be in any way related? In particular, on the 8086 if
- ptrcmp was a bitwise compare it would yield a total order,
- but we would have
-
- p == q && ptrcmp(p,q) !=0
-
-
- --
- ;----------------------------------------------------------------------
- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
- Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
- ;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
-