🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43kb6s$ntr@news0.rain.rg.net> Paul Long <plong@perf.com>
writes:

|> kanze@gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze) wrote:

|> >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.

Probably.  I don't have my C standard here to check, and was simply
remembering one of the differences between C and C++.  In fact,
though, checking the difference (in the draft C standard), it says
nothing about C not using name equivalence, only that in certain
contexts (of which, presumably, this is not one), C allows equivalent
types.

This also corresponds more to what I remember way back when, when I
was tracking the draft C standard (and actively working in C, instead
of C++).
-- 
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle --
                              -- Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung