Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Answers, Chapter 1: TeX (was C's sins... and others)
Message-ID: <7AZ6O15@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 8 Nov 90 14:28:33 GMT
References: <6363:Nov720:32:5090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <5222@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 16

In article <5222@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> You're still missing the point.  In order to implement a memory
> manager, it is necessary to _compare_ pointers which are _known_ to
> point to _different_ data objects.

So? A memory manager is an implementation-dependent module, not a portable
one. I can use swiss bank accounts for all ANSI cares.

> Because of the ANSI restrictions on pointers, it is not
> safe to compare them in this way (in fact, neither of the C compilers
> I have at home do this job with pointers).

Let me guess... you have an IBM-PC at home? Well, *THAT* is the machine
responsible for the ANSI restrictions on pointers *in portable code*.

I rest my case (good thing, it was getting pretty heavy).
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com