🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <27E01E50.64DF@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
|   f1.c:
|
|      main()
|      {
|          blah("howdy");
|      }
|
|   f2.c:
|
|      #include <stdio.h>
|      blah(void *p)
|      {
|          puts(p);
|      }
|
|See?  It *is* a language issue, after all.

If this *is* a language issue -- then it points out that the issue
of whether or not char* and void* has the "same representation" or not 
is moot -- because in C++ this example would fail to link -- even on
implementations wherea char* and void* have the same representation.
Thus I reiterate my statements that the C++ committee ought to stay
focused on specifying *language* not *implementation.*