🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KANZE.95Sep25163038@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>, kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763) writes:
>In article <446b6d$r5n@rdsunx.crd.ge.com> volpe@bart.crd.ge.com
>(Christopher R. Volpe) writes:
>
>    [Concerning function prototype scope...]
>|> I tend to prefer simpler rules. "Declared identifiers exist from the point of
>|> declaration to the end of the scope in which they are declared." Nice and
>|> simple. 
>
>Does this mean that you want the following to be illegal:
>
>	void f( int i ) ;
>	int i ;			//  Illegal, since `i' from f-p still
>				//  in scope.

Huh? I don't know how you got that from what I said. I was defending the
current rules, under which the above is legal by virtue of the simple
existence of f-p scope, as opposed to the alternate suggestion, in which f-p
scope exists but the rules are complicated so as to forbid tag declarations in
f-p scope. But under each alternative, the above is legal. There was no
suggestion that the above be illegal.

>(I have no particular point of view concerning f-p scope, but I do
>want the above to be legal.)

Me too.

--

Chris Volpe				Phone: (518) 387-7766 (Dial Comm 8*833
GE Corporate R&D			Fax:   (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8, Schenectady, NY 12301		Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com