🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43uhlf$hhi@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>, volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher R. Volpe) writes
: So, perhaps my misinderstanding is not totally inexplicable.
*sigh* You hav a point.

: I don't understand this. If you try passing a pointer to one kind of struct to
: a function that accepts a pointer to a different kind of struct, the compiler
: is *required* to issue a diagnostic.
More examples of the failure of my notion that f-p scope is helpful in
preventing bad function-calls, _if_ all pointers shall hav the same shape:
then f-p scope is thereto irrelevant, although it can prevent a function-call,
and, furthermore, that just as unsafe calls are not prevented.
: You complain that the compiler is
: "permitted to generate code and warning". What you don't realize is that the
: compiler is ALWAYS permitted to generate code and a warning, no matter how bad
: your source code is. The Standard *requires* a diagnostic for this kind of
: parameter mismatch, and that's the best the Standard can do.
Erm, no--the standard-writers are free to write that that is no
C-program, but, it seems, thei hav not.  I ween that this is a matter
of holding to the tradition of compiling C-programs that seem unsafe.
It seems quite hard to hold to this tradition and withal write a standard
that rightlie and meaningfullie states it, what a C-program or C-compiler is.
Tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov claims that the standard in this matter has faild.

: Couldn't make sense of the above. Pointer types don't get "promoted" in old C.
That is so; I meant onlie that older C lackind parameter-declaration that
the caller sees has this hack that lessend the unsafeness of it: not
passing 'char', 'short int', 'float', but instead longer forms, which,
among other things, lets the caller "safelie" put constants in a call.

: What is a bad hack? F-p scope? Perhaps. What's your solution that allows
: declarations like the above without namespace corruption?
(Yes.)  Putting onlie the parameter-name into fp-scope,
not new type-names and tags.