Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #1193Re: pointer comparisons
From: Fergus James HENDERSON
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 13:35
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 13:35
22 lines
1423 bytes
1423 bytes
maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes: >pkt@lpi.liant.com (Scott Turner) writes: >> Does it govern base class subobjects? As I understand it, >> base class subobjects are objects, and hence are covered. > > One consequence: abstract objects can exist. > > Corollary: such objects have states not accessible via > the contiguous storage allocated for them. > (via virtual function calls) As I noted in a previous article, I don't agree with Scott Turners belief that base class subobjects are objects. To me, these are absurd consequences, and thus I conclude that the assumption used in deriving them must be flawed. -- Fergus Henderson fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own .signature file!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9300300.29980@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjhReferences:
<1992Dec27.050118.1628@lpi.liant.com> <1992Dec30.184614.5551@microsoft.com> <1992Dec31.170223.21637@lpi.liant.com> <1993Jan1.155241.28217@ucc.su.OZ.AU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) Subject: Re: pointer comparisons Message-ID: <9300300.29980@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia References: <1992Dec27.050118.1628@lpi.liant.com> <1992Dec30.184614.5551@microsoft.com> <1992Dec31.170223.21637@lpi.liant.com> <1993Jan1.155241.28217@ucc.su.OZ.AU> Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 13:35:25 GMT Lines: 22