home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jimad
- From: jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock)
- Subject: Re: pointer comparisons
- Message-ID: <1993Jan05.002547.12038@microsoft.com>
- Date: 05 Jan 93 00:25:47 GMT
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- References: <1992Dec27.050118.1628@lpi.liant.com> <1992Dec30.184614.5551@microsoft.com> <1992Dec31.152700.21521@lpi.liant.com>
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Dec31.152700.21521@lpi.liant.com> pkt@lpi.liant.com (Scott Turner) writes:
- |"Same type" is a term used repeatedly in the ARM. It has its limitations,
- |but is adequate for my purpose.
-
- "Defined by use"? How about a "real" definition?
-
- |"Point to distinct objects" would imply two things:
- |(1) Each operand points to one object (not a function, and is not null or
- | invalid).
- |(2) The objects are not identicial. I hope to say more about this in
- | another article.
-
- Presumably distinct objects are not identical and objects that are not
- identical are distinct? ;-) I hope you will tell us more about this
- later!
-
- |The case I'm concerned with is limited to "objects of that type", i.e.
- |each operand points to a properly constructed object of type A (which may
- |be a subobject of an enclosing object constructed with a different type).
-
- Define "subobject" and "enclosing now."
-
- |"Compare not equal" is self-evident; the C standard uses the same kind
- |of wording. It means that the result of the operator != is 1 (TRUE) and
- |the result of the operator == is 0 (FALSE).
-
- "Compare not equal" was self-evident in C because C has a clearly stated
- object model with well-defined object identity. No such luck in C++.
-
-