Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Scope of identifiers
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:38:25 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <lnink1gnzy.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <ohmea9$nft$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="defc4e5ae30e31482245c2bebee97ffa"; logging-data="11657"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jaEstUEMlmfy9n0aNZdh7"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fgg6TIC4RteQpQ6ygwweV+fVaUg= sha1:x+eCgxebFiF2X7lE7KBphTbrf0U=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:112055

Steve Keller <keller@no.invalid> writes:
> While reading again in the standard about declarations and (tentative)
> definitions, and linkage, I also read about scope of identifiers and
> was confused:
>
> The standard says in 6.2.1p6 that "two identifiers have the same
> scope if and only if their scopes terminate at the same point."

Yes, and the phrase "same scope" is in italics, which means this is the
definition of the term.  Two identifiers can have the *same scope*
even if their scopes begin in different places.

It might have been less confusing if the standard had used a different
phrase, perhaps "matching scope".

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
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"