On Sep 22, 2004, at 11:15 AM, Dick Hendrickson wrote:
> "If a pointer is currently associated with a portion
> (2.4.3.1) of a target object that is independent of any
> other portion of the target object, it shall not be
> deallocated."
>
> Doesn't that define what we mean by "whole object"? It's
> the things that don't have any independent portions.
Umm. Well, for a start, that looks like a separate condition rather
than a definition or explanation of the previous one. If it was
supposed to be such a definition, then it should have had at
least some kind of connective to say so.
And for a second... if that's supposed to be a definition, then wow.
I like definitions that make things more clear instead of less. :-(
I find the "whole" bit to be a little ambiguous, but I find that
condition completely cryptic - I don't know what it is saying at all.
I have trouble imagining that I'd have let that one by into f2003
without bitching loudly. With the reference to 2.4.3.1, it might be
trying to say something about subobjects, but darned if I can
figure out what.
Let's see... Nope. Not in f2003, though the "whole" bit is.
Presumably we concluded either that it didn't say anything or
that whatever it said was already covered.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
[log in to unmask] | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain
|