bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:Please don't be patronising. We are not kids in your PL class.
On 09/04/2025 00:27, Tim Rentsch wrote:There is a simple lesson that you need to learn:
>bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:>
>>If you want to make a point or ask a question about C code,>
SHOW THE CODE. And show all of it. Don't make people guess
by showing only some of the code or by giving just a description.
I'm showing the code but you keep snipping it! [...]
No, I don't. Don't be so obtuse. I included the code I was
originally commenting on, in my first followup. My comment about
showing code was about your second posting. Let me repeat the two
important paragraphs (quoted above) taken from that posting:
>>I get an incompatible error (from the example you snipped) even when I
remove both struct tags.
The phrase "even when I remove both struct tags" describes code, it
doesn't show the code.
I showed this example a few lines later [in an earlier posting]
which has both struct tags omitted:
When someone is responding to a post, they are responding ONLY toI'm not sure what your gripe is other than maybe I picked up on something you got wrong. The discussion was about two struct types like this:
the content in the posting they are responing to; not to some
earlier posting in the same thread, not to a different posting
submitted two weeks ago, not to what you meant to say but didn't,
not to thoughts in your head but that you didn't say, but ONLY TO
WHAT IS SAID IN THE POSTING BEING RESPONDED TO.
If you can learn to follow this simple rule everyone in the
newsgroup will be better off, including you.
typedef struct tag1 {...} T1;
typedef struct tag2 {...} T2;
and whether T1 and T2 were compatible or not. You said:
"and those types are not compatible, because the two struct tags are different."
In this case the tags would be "tag1" and "tag2". I then said:
"I get an incompatible error (from the example you snipped) even when I
remove both struct tags."
That means removing "tag1" and "tag2" so the example above looks like this:
typedef struct {...} T1;
typedef struct {...} T2;
Here, you can't say the struct tags are different, as they are not visible! Maybe there are internal ones that differ, but that is not obvious. What /can/ be seen from the source is two distinct types.
But it seems you've lost interest in that, and are berating me for not illustrating what:
typedef struct tag1 {...} T1;
typedef struct tag2 {...} T2;
might look like with "both tags removed". I think you also wanted me to illustrate what it might look like when both have the same tag, after I said they would clash in both in same scope. That is, you wanted an example like this:
typedef struct tag1 {...} T1;
{typedef struct tag1 {...} T2; ... }
(This one was interesting to me (obviously no longer to you) because the tags are now clearly identical, yet T1/T2 are still incompatible.
As I concluded, your assertion about compatibility being based on tags being the same or not didn't seem right.)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.