home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!titan!lpi!pkt
- From: pkt@lpi.liant.com (Scott Turner)
- Subject: Re: pointer comparisons
- Message-ID: <1993Jan7.152329.783@lpi.liant.com>
- Sender: pkt@lpi (Scott Turner)
- Organization: Liant Software Corporation
- References: <1993Jan4.200625.5680@lucid.com> <1993Jan5.060332.5262@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1993Jan5.222300.29535@lucid.com> <1993Jan06.201647.7602@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:23:29 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- Jim Adcock writes:
- > |And a "base subobject" bears an analogous relationship to the
- > |containing object(s).
- >
- > I disagree. I consider the analogy to be sufficiently weak
- > that I don't think a consistent set of rules can be developed
- > for both base parts and other objects that reasonably captures
- > the behavior of both categories.
-
- It always seemed to me that the very term "base class subobject" was
- making the analogy, and pointing to the fact that there were other kinds of
- subobjects, i.e. elements and members.
-
- If you don't think base class subobjects can be objects and still
- support a reasonable set of rules regarding objects, how about saying
- more clearly what's the conflict with the present rules? Your multiple
- inheritance example is interesting, but do you think it indicates any
- difficulties for Jerry Schwarz's and my reading of the rules?
-
- (You have indeed pointed out one conflict with the present rules. 1.3 of the
- working paper says that an object occupies a contiguous set of bytes,
- which conflicts with the usual implementation techniques for virtual bases
- of base classes. But it's easy enough to make an exception to this rule, for
- base class subobjects.)
- --
- Prescott K. Turner, Jr.
- Liant Software Corp. (developers of LPI languages)
- 959 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701 USA (508) 872-8700
- UUCP: uunet!lpi!pkt Internet: pkt@lpi.liant.com
-