pointer equality (was: Re: pointer representation (was: ...))

[Norman Diamond]

In article <2079 at munnari.oz.au> ok at cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:

>People are encouraged to think of == as testing for EQUALITY.
>In dpANS C, [in the case of pointers] it appears that == does *NOT*
>have the properties of equality, and at the very least this needs to
>be said clearly and explicitly in the Rationale.

In fact, it calls for a note in the Standard, in the section defining
the == operator.  Surely no one can claim that this effect of the rule
is obvious, or that it yields the least surprising results.

--
-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corporation (diamond at ws.sony.junet)
  The above opinions are inherited by your machine's init process (pid 1),
  after being disowned and orphaned.  However, if you see this at Waterloo or
  Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.