diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond) (09/14/89)
In article <2079@munnari.oz.au> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes: >People are encouraged to think of == as testing for EQUALITY. >In dpANS C, [in the case of pointers] it appears that == does *NOT* >have the properties of equality, and at the very least this needs to >be said clearly and explicitly in the Rationale. In fact, it calls for a note in the Standard, in the section defining the == operator. Surely no one can claim that this effect of the rule is obvious, or that it yields the least surprising results. -- -- Norman Diamond, Sony Corporation (diamond@ws.sony.junet) The above opinions are inherited by your machine's init process (pid 1), after being disowned and orphaned. However, if you see this at Waterloo or Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.
davidl@intelob.intel.com (David Levine) (09/19/89)
In article <10840@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond) writes: > In article <2079@munnari.oz.au> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes: > >People are encouraged to think of == as testing for EQUALITY. > >In dpANS C, [in the case of pointers] it appears that == does *NOT* > >have the properties of equality, and at the very least this needs to > >be said clearly and explicitly in the Rationale. > > In fact, it calls for a note in the Standard, in the section defining > the == operator. Surely no one can claim that this effect of the rule > is obvious, or that it yields the least surprising results. I'm sorry, I must have missed something. I was on vacation for two weeks; perhaps the referenced article expired. Now I've waited almost a week for someone to follow this one up, but apparently nobody else is, so: Why do you claim that == doesn't test for equality on pointers? The dpANS tells us that two pointers are equal if they point to the same object; isn't that the only possible portable definition of pointer equality? (I DON'T want a definition of pointer equality that compares bit patterns.) As I said, perhaps I've missed something. David D. Levine BBBBBBBBB IIII IIII NNN NNNN TM Senior Technical Writer BBBB BBBB iiii iiii NNNN NNNN BBBBBBBBB IIII IIII NNNNNNNNN UUCP: ...[!uunet]!tektronix!biin!davidl BBBB BBBB IIII IIII NNNN NNNN MX-Internet: <davidl@intelob.intel.com> BBBBBBBBB IIII IIII NNNN NNN ARPA: <@iwarp.intel.com:davidl@intelob.intel.com>