🚀 go-pugleaf

sjm@bcrki65.bnr.ca (Stuart MacMartin) writes:
|In article <BzCG7K.2sG@frumious.uucp> pat@frumious.uucp (Patrick Smith) writes:
|>
|>jss@lucid.com (Jerry Schwarz) writes:
|>|And
|>|
|>|       if p < q is defined,  ptrcmp(p,q) < 0   <=>  p < q
|>
|>
|>This strikes me as nice to have, but not essential.
|
|It makes me nervous to disagree with you, but haven't we already 
|hammered to death the concept that p < q might be defined (but 
|not generate a total ordering) if some ps and qs are not in the
|same segment?  Or do the PC compilers only permit p < q for ps
|and qs in the same array?

Please don't be nervous, Stuart!  I make _lots_ of mistakes.
(No smiley here, because it's quite true.)

This seems to depend on what one means by "p < q is defined".
I can't say what Jerry meant, but (without thinking about it
too much), I took him to mean something something like
"if the standard defines what p < q means".  Which I _thought_
meant p and q had to point to objects in the same array or
subobjects of the same object.  And p < q does have to behave
as expected in those cases (with some of the "subobjects
of the same object" cases being legal exceptions).

The emphasis on _thought_ is because then I looked at the
draft standard.  More on that in another posting...

-- 
Patrick Smith
uunet.ca!frumious!pat
pat%frumious.uucp@uunet.ca