🚀 go-pugleaf

I said:
| In particular, it could not modify padding at the end of a struct,
| precisely *because* it would break the struct hack.

Steve Clamage replied:
> We seem to have some circular reasoning here.
> I proposed an implemention which I claimed was conforming on which
> the struct hack would not work; therefore the struct hack is illegal.
> Mark claims the struct hack is legal; therefore the proposed
> implementation is not conforming.

My reasoning only looks circular if you do not consider that statement
"the struct hack is conforming" has *already* been proven.  My actual
claim, or rather statement, is that it has been.  And since this *is*
established, we can then make other deductions from it, such as that
Steve's proposed implementation is non-conforming.  (As it happens, this
has also been proved on other grounds in other postings.)
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
  "And just when I had you wriggling in the crushing grip of reason, too."
   -- Calvin and Hobbes
      (borrowed just for the occasion from a colleague's signature collection)
 
This article is in the public domain.