alex@cca.CCA.COM (Alexis Layton) (05/24/88)
Now that structure/class assignment is defined as (recursive) memberwise assignment in the absense of assignment operators, I wonder if a similar recursive memberwise definition of equality comparison is not in order. What are the stylistic, semantic, and implementation-specific arguments for and against such a feature?
ark@alice.UUCP (05/24/88)
In article <28535@cca.CCA.COM>, alex@cca.UUCP writes: > Now that structure/class assignment is defined as (recursive) memberwise > assignment in the absense of assignment operators, I wonder if a similar > recursive memberwise definition of equality comparison is not in order. > What are the stylistic, semantic, and implementation-specific arguments > for and against such a feature? The main argument against it is that C does not have a default structure comparison operator.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/25/88)
> Now that structure/class assignment is defined as (recursive) memberwise > assignment in the absense of assignment operators, I wonder if a similar > recursive memberwise definition of equality comparison is not in order. > What are the stylistic, semantic, and implementation-specific arguments > for and against such a feature? Here's one against: how do you compare unions? -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) (06/01/88)
In article <1988May24.170429.994@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >[some unattributed person notes that struct/class assignment is now defined >as recursive memberwise assignment, and asks about extending this concept to >equality comparison] > >Here's one against: how do you compare unions? Why should the compare feature include unions? Surely, unions aren't covered by the new assignment feature. Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint