comp.lang.c++

* Default User:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>
>> * Default User:
>
>>> If they wanted that, they could have said, "void* and char* shall
>>> have the same representation". They very specifically said that
>>> void* is the same a char*.
>> If "they" didn't want that paragraph to mean "Pascal is really
>> better", then "they" wouldn't have used that blindingly-obvious code
>> phrase "cv-qualified or cv-unqualified", but simply said nothing
>> about that. So it's obvious that the sentence means "Pascal is really
>> better".
>
> I don't see how that follows. However, you're obviously determined to
> be stubborn about it. I don't agree, and won't agree, that there is any
> sort of commutative property expressed.

"same as" is commutative.

To prove your point about non-communitativity of "same as" you have to
demonstrate that void* can have the same representation as char*, while
simultanously, char* does not have the same representation as void*.

More generally, you have to prove that A can be the same as B, while
simultanously B isn't the same as A.



> You are free to hold a differing opinion.

There is no opinion involved.


Cheers, & hth.,

- Alf

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?