Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:03:09 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <874m8x2b3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="20172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lh45G2bXkQz3emyNBgNnB" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LbB/lVGRblWoj75uYxnE8Rb2kRM= sha1:yP8Yr6RCvzFIj2ilWsJSoXaEIv0= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:89047 BartC writes: > On 13/06/2016 20:45, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC writes: >> [...] >>> If you mean you can't understand what I'm on about, I'm referring to this: >>> >>> int a; {X.... int a; Y....} >>> >>> The scope of the second 'int a' is not just limited to the X-Y block, >>> but only to the Y-half, as the X-half has the first 'int a' in scope. > >> Can you explain the point you're trying to make? > > That mixed declarations and statements, /as defined in C/, are an > inelegant feature. Probably fiddly to implement too, although I don't > know if that's why they're not in SDCC as most C compilers manage it, > and SDCC is not a small system. Now I'm confused. The example doesn't depend on mixed declarations and statements. You've said elsewhere that you also dislike declarations in inner blocks; perhaps that's what you mean by "mixed"? In any case, it doesn't matter. Let's disagree and move on. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"