🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4405ig$fmd@caip.rutgers.edu> halasz@caip.rutgers.edu writes:

>In article <DFBsED.2H1@stdc.demon.co.uk>, clive@stdc.demon.co.uk writes
>: ....
>: I'm not totally sure how this thread started, because I plonked halsaz
>: some time ago (how can *anyone* post about standards with such
>: deliberate non-standard spelling ?).
>Why discuss a standard if not to change it???

Deliberately (provocatively?) ignoring a standard is not the same as 
discussing possible changes to it.

>: The Standard's authors prefered to have a simple concept of scope rather
>: than one full of special cases. So tags have the same (prototype) scope
>: as anything else within a prototype. This means you need to first declare
>: the tag outside the prototype. This is trivial, and makes it clear that
>: the tag used here is the same as the one used elsewhere in file scope.
>But nou it is quite clear that that experiment has gone awry, and
>the lack of a special case is a headake to the poor programmer.

No, it isn't even a headache.  It certainly wasn't an 'experiment', either.
It was a deliberate choice made for well-considered reasons.  You may be 
one of those 'poor programer' who has trouble.  Personally I have no 
difficulty with it at all.

If you are having problems, I suggest it is because you are trying 
to subvert the standard, rather than use it.  Don't complain that 
the push-bike is badly designed because you can't pedal it with 
your hands!

If you _genuinely_ believe there is a problem, post an example.  I'll 
guarantee to be able to supply a simple and easy solution.

-- 
============================================================================
 Ian Cargill  CEng MIEE  | Find out about the Association of C and C++ Users
 Soliton Software Ltd.   | info@accu.org OR  http://bach.cis.temple.edu/accu