home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!lucid.com!lucid.com!jss
- From: jss@lucid.com (Jerry Schwarz)
- Subject: Re: pointer comparisons
- Message-ID: <1993Jan4.200625.5680@lucid.com>
- Sender: usenet@lucid.com
- Reply-To: jss@lucid.com (Jerry Schwarz)
- Organization: Lucid, Inc.
- References: <1992Dec27.050118.1628@lpi.liant.com> <1992Dec30.184614.5551@microsoft.com> <1992Dec31.170223.21637@lpi.liant.com> <1993Jan1.155241.28217@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <9300300.29980@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:06:25 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <9300300.29980@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
- |>
- |> As I noted in a previous article, I don't agree with Scott Turners belief
- |> that base class subobjects are objects. To me, these are absurd
- |> consequences, and thus I conclude that the assumption used in deriving them
- |> must be flawed.
-
- Perhaps fjh would specify some of these "absurd consequences". I
- agree with Scott. Base class subobjects are objects. Anything else
- would be incomprehensible to me.
-
- Given a (pointer to) a base class subobject it is sometimes
- necessary to find the containing derived class object. In the
- past this conversion operation was necessary only for virtual
- function call, but the semantics of C++ are best understood
- by considering it a non-trivial operation. In the future,
- if RTTI is accepted, this may become an explicit user invocable
- operation in some contexts.
-
- -- Jerry Schwarz
-
-
-