🚀 go-pugleaf

kanze@gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze) wrote:
>I *think* that the rationale for disallowing defining new types in
>function prototypes is that there is no way to use such types.

Right, that's my point.  Other than within the prototype, the new type
cannot be referrenced. It's practically useless.

>In C++
>(which uses name equivalence), there is in fact no way to even call the
>function (since the function must be called with a type whose scope ends
>at the end of the function prototype).  In C, if I'm not mistaken, it
>should be possible to declare an exactly equivalent type outside the
>function prototype, and use it, although I imagine that this would be
>very error prone.

I believe that you are mistaken. The two structures would be different even if
they were compatible and had the same tag.

-- 
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.