🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec31.152700.21521@lpi.liant.com> pkt@lpi.liant.com (Scott Turner) writes:
|"Same type" is a term used repeatedly in the ARM.  It has its limitations,
|but is adequate for my purpose.

"Defined by use"?  How about a "real" definition?

|"Point to distinct objects" would imply two things:
|(1) Each operand points to one object (not a function, and is not null or
|    invalid).
|(2) The objects are not identicial.  I hope to say more about this in 
|    another article.

Presumably distinct objects are not identical and objects that are not
identical are distinct? ;-)  I hope you will tell us more about this
later!

|The case I'm concerned with is limited to "objects of that type", i.e.
|each operand points to a properly constructed object of type A (which may
|be a subobject of an enclosing object constructed with a different type).

Define "subobject" and "enclosing now."

|"Compare not equal" is self-evident; the C standard uses the same kind
|of wording.  It means that the result of the operator != is 1 (TRUE) and
|the result of the operator == is 0 (FALSE).

"Compare not equal" was self-evident in C because C has a clearly stated
object model with well-defined object identity.  No such luck in C++.