🚀 go-pugleaf

jss@lucid.com (Jerry Schwarz) writes:

>I'm not going to propose any exact wording here or address the question
>of whether words already exist in the ARM because any attempt would
>drop me into the terminological tar pit.  But I will say that I don't
>think those words should make a distinction between X's that have or
>don't have data members, or virtuals, or pure virtuals or anything
>else.

I would tend to agree. But I think that it might very well be appropriate
for the commentary to contain something like

	- Note that the above wording implies that if a class has any data
	  members, then ... (some guarantee about pointer comparisons).

In other words, requirements for data members (or such-like) could be implicit
rather than explicit in the ARM.

-- 
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!