home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!maxtal
- From: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller)
- Subject: Re: pointer comparisons
- Message-ID: <1993Jan6.175124.613@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: <1992Dec31.170223.21637@lpi.liant.com> <1993Jan05.003819.12515@microsoft.com> <1993Jan5.203237.28304@lpi.liant.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:51:24 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
- In article <1993Jan5.203237.28304@lpi.liant.com> pkt@lpi.liant.com (Scott Turner) writes:
- >
- >Which is where I wish to leave the issue, willing to trust for the present
- >that objects which I wish distinct will be distinct. This trust rests on
- >
- > 1. The status of distinct objects as objects.
- >
- > 2. The guarantee of 1.3 that an object occupies at least 1 byte
- > of storage.
-
- What does 1.3 say? (I do not have the WP, only the ARM.
- The ARM appears to guarrantee ONLY that operator new() must
- yield distinct addresses, it says nothing about subobjects
- or included objects that I can find. Have I missed something?)
-
- --
- ;----------------------------------------------------------------------
- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
- Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
- ;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
-