🚀 go-pugleaf

This is something I've wondered about. Why does function-prototype scope exist?
Does anyone take advantage of it? I doubt whether anyone other than compiler
writers even knows that it exists.

I am NOT proposing that function-prototype scope be removed from the Standard,
but for sake of discussion, why couldn't something like these constraints take
the place of the description of function-prototype scope in the Standard:

    A function parameter shall not declare a new type (i.e., a new
    structure, union, or enumerated type).

    The identifier of a function-parameter declarator shall not be
    referenced except within the function being defined.

These constraints would render the following non-conforming.

    void foo(struct S { int a; }, struct S *, int i, int a[sizeof i]);

Is function-prototype scope provided for completeness? Would it have been more
confusing to preclude it? What gives?

-- 
Paul Long                               45:29:14N 122:48:09W
plong@perf.com                          http://www.teleport.com/~pciwww/
    "Where time or intelligence are lacking, a goto may do the job."
        - M.E. Hopkins, "A Case for the GOTO," 1972.