🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec15.164854.13070@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
|	I'm not sure we've all agreed on the relationship, if any,
|between < and ptrcmp, but I think we agree that
|
|	"there will be a library function ptrcmp(void*,void*)
|	which defines a total order"
|
|unless you can convince us the < is worth more  than
|making assumptions about all future machine architectures.

This is silly.  "We all agree unless you prove otherwise" ????

Agreement is agreement.  If people agree, then they agree.  If
they don't agree, they don't agree.  No proof is involved.  Standards
arise around areas of general agreement.  Things that people can't
or won't agree upon don't get standardized.  Frequently compromise
is involved in reaching agreement, such that people at both extremes
of some position give up something in order to reach a statement that
all can agree to.


I suggest that OODBMS writers need to be consulted on this matter,
since in practice I think they are the most likely to be heavily
affected.

Again, you do not improve portability by making conforming C++
implementations unavailable on some systems.  You do not improve
portability by insisting on functionality that cannot be efficiently
implemented on some systems.  You get portabilitiy by writing
your code in a manner that can be affordably implemented on all
systems that you are interested in porting to.

I believe OODBMSs, lisp machine, OOArchitectures, etc, should be
systems we are interested in porting C++ code to.