Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond
From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Re^3 (was 2): struct comparison
Message-ID: <10577@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 19 Jul 89 02:19:07 GMT
References: <2874@solo3.cs.vu.nl> <1989Jul14.155312.2063@utzoo.uucp> <2878@kappl.cs.vu.nl> <1989Jul15.210821.7950@utzoo.uucp> <167@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET
Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 20

In article <167@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom) writes:

>Why should struct comparison be also supported for those structs with
>member objects for which direct comparison support is not provided (arrays
>and strings case in point - [Henry Spencer's] example).

Maybe for the same reason structs can be passed as function parameters
and be returned as results even when some member objects do not have
direct assignment support (arrays and strings for example).

C-90 (maybe C-89 if they're quick) did define a lot more new practices
than is admitted by Doug Gwyn.  C-0x will define many more.  C-0x will
be called C, not D; just as C-90 is still called C.  So this newsgroup
is in fact an appropriate place for this kind of discussion.

--
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net)
  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.