Structure tags

[Michael Kahl]

In article <15147 at smoke.brl.mil> gwyn at smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <1991Feb9.164052.9691 at world.std.com> mkahl at world.std.com (Michael Kahl) writes:
>>Are you certain?
>
>Yes.  If you don't believe me, and can't read the very clear specification
>of this feature in the C standard, you could ask ANSI/X3J11 for a formal
>interpretation ruling.

I have to say I find this reply somewhat ad hominem, not to say rude.

I can, in fact, read very clear specifications.  In this instance, however,
we apparently disagree as to what is specified, and by implication, as to its
clarity.  I am also willing to countenance the possibility that I may have
missed, or misinterpreted, something.  Are you?

In my original post I presented an argument against your interpretation,
specifically referring to the clause "in an enclosing scope" qualifying the
statement in the Standard on which you seemed to be basing your position.
I also referred to the explanation of this feature given in the Rationale.

To reiterate, I see nothing in the Standard or Rationale to suggest that
a tag-only struct declaration should "cancel" an existing type declared
earlier in the *same* scope.  In an enclosing scope, yes, that is the whole
point, after all.  But since both the Standard and the Rationale are careful
to say "in an enclosing scope", I don't believe it applies in the same scope.

If you would care to respond to the point, I would be pleased to be educated.
However, if you cannot refrain from insulting my intelligence, please don't
bother to reply.

-- 
Michael Kahl, Symantec Corporation
mkahl at world.std.com  -or-  75236.3146 at compuserve.com
Disclaimer:  Keep this quiet; what my employer doesn't know won't get me fired.