Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #19920 > unrolled thread

Function Parameter-List with Identifiers

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Function Parameter-List with Identifiers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 16:33 -0400
    Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-04-25 13:50 -0700
      Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 18:00 -0400
        Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-04-25 15:22 -0700
          Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 18:39 -0400
    Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 17:45 -0400
      Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 18:37 -0400
    Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-04-25 18:20 -0400
      Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-04-25 18:38 -0400
        Re: Function Parameter-List with Identifiers pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-04-25 21:21 -0400

#19920 — Function Parameter-List with Identifiers

Good day, respected regulars and other readers!

Quick question: At file scope, suppose we have:

   extern void foo(int Bar);
   void foo(int bar) { return; }

(Please note the case.)  I seem to recall some bit about the former 
parameter identifiers being ignored, but can't seem to find that bit. 
Does anyone recall if that's so?  It's not an identifier-list, but a 
parameter-list.

Thank you for your time.

- Shao Miller

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#19922

Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:

> Quick question: At file scope, suppose we have:
>
>   extern void foo(int Bar);
>   void foo(int bar) { return; }
>
> (Please note the case.)  I seem to recall some bit about the former
> parameter identifiers being ignored, but can't seem to find that
> bit. Does anyone recall if that's so?  It's not an identifier-list,
> but a parameter-list.

It is so.  You can even add "const" to one of the prototypes, if
you like.

(If you want, I'll look up a reference for you.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19927

On 4/25/2012 16:50, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Shao Miller<sha0.miller@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> Quick question: At file scope, suppose we have:
>>
>>    extern void foo(int Bar);
>>    void foo(int bar) { return; }
>>
>> (Please note the case.)  I seem to recall some bit about the former
>> parameter identifiers being ignored, but can't seem to find that
>> bit. Does anyone recall if that's so?  It's not an identifier-list,
>> but a parameter-list.
>
> It is so.  You can even add "const" to one of the prototypes, if
> you like.
>
> (If you want, I'll look up a reference for you.)

Thank you for your response.

Since 'const' is a type qualifier, I'm sure you weren't referring to 
N1570 6.7.6.3p13 (where 6.7.6.3p2 is relevant for that, too).

Were you suggesting this because of N1570 6.7p4 and 6.7.6.3p15; that 
type compatibility is the only consideration for this particular example?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19930

Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> writes:

> On 4/25/2012 16:50, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Shao Miller<sha0.miller@gmail.com>  writes:
>>
>>> Quick question: At file scope, suppose we have:
>>>
>>>    extern void foo(int Bar);
>>>    void foo(int bar) { return; }
>>>
>>> (Please note the case.)  I seem to recall some bit about the former
>>> parameter identifiers being ignored, but can't seem to find that
>>> bit. Does anyone recall if that's so?  It's not an identifier-list,
>>> but a parameter-list.
>>
>> It is so.  You can even add "const" to one of the prototypes, if
>> you like.
>>
>> (If you want, I'll look up a reference for you.)
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> Since 'const' is a type qualifier, I'm sure you weren't referring to
> N1570 6.7.6.3p13 (where 6.7.6.3p2 is relevant for that, too).

I don't have N1570 conveniently at hand.

I'm talking about the final sentence in paragraph 13 in C99
6.7.5.3 "Function declarators (including prototypes)":

      (In the determination of type compatibility and of a
      composite type, each parameter declared with function or
      array type is taken as having the adjusted type and each
      parameter declared with qualified type is taken as having
      the unqualified version of its declared type.)

> Were you suggesting this because of N1570 6.7p4 and 6.7.6.3p15; that
> type compatibility is the only consideration for this particular
> example?

Sorry, the lack of N1570 makes me not follow this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19936

On 4/25/2012 18:22, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Shao Miller<sha0.miller@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> On 4/25/2012 16:50, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>> Shao Miller<sha0.miller@gmail.com>   writes:
>>>
>>>> Quick question: At file scope, suppose we have:
>>>>
>>>>     extern void foo(int Bar);
>>>>     void foo(int bar) { return; }
>>>>
>>>> (Please note the case.)  I seem to recall some bit about the former
>>>> parameter identifiers being ignored, but can't seem to find that
>>>> bit. Does anyone recall if that's so?  It's not an identifier-list,
>>>> but a parameter-list.
>>>
>>> It is so.  You can even add "const" to one of the prototypes, if
>>> you like.
>>>
>>> (If you want, I'll look up a reference for you.)
>>
>> Thank you for your response.
>>
>> Since 'const' is a type qualifier, I'm sure you weren't referring to
>> N1570 6.7.6.3p13 (where 6.7.6.3p2 is relevant for that, too).
>
> I don't have N1570 conveniently at hand.
>
> I'm talking about the final sentence in paragraph 13 in C99
> 6.7.5.3 "Function declarators (including prototypes)":
>
>        (In the determination of type compatibility and of a
>        composite type, each parameter declared with function or
>        array type is taken as having the adjusted type and each
>        parameter declared with qualified type is taken as having
>        the unqualified version of its declared type.)
>
>> Were you suggesting this because of N1570 6.7p4 and 6.7.6.3p15; that
>> type compatibility is the only consideration for this particular
>> example?
>
> Sorry, the lack of N1570 makes me not follow this.

Right, that's the C99 counterpart.  Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19926

On 4/25/2012 16:45, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Shao Miller<sha0.miller@gmail.com>  writes:
>> parameter identifiers being ignored
>
>    N1570 6.7.6.3p15
>

Thank you for your response.

Forgive me, but I don't quite follow the relevance of that paragraph. 
It's discussing compatible types.  Are you suggesting this piece because 
of 6.7p4?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19933

On 4/25/2012 18:08, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Shao Miller<sha0.miller@gmail.com>  writes:
>>> N1570 6.7.6.3p15
>> It's discussing compatible types.  Are you suggesting this piece because
>> of 6.7p4?
>
>    I mention it because it does not mention the parameter identifiers, and
>    because of 6.2.7p2.
>

Ok, thanks! :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19929

Shao Miller wrote:
> 
> Good day, respected regulars and other readers!
> 
> Quick question: At file scope, suppose we have:
> 
>    extern void foo(int Bar);
>    void foo(int bar) { return; }
> 
> (Please note the case.)  I seem to recall some bit about the former
> parameter identifiers being ignored, but can't seem to find that bit.
> Does anyone recall if that's so?  It's not an identifier-list, but a
> parameter-list.
> 
> Thank you for your time.

n1570

6.2 Concepts
6.2.1 Scopes of identifiers

4 If the declarator or type specifier
  that declares the identifier appears
  within the list of parameter declarations in a function prototype 
  (not part of a function definition), 
  the identifier has function prototype scope,
  which terminates at the end of the function declarator.

-- 
pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19935

On 4/25/2012 18:20, pete wrote:
> Shao Miller wrote:
>>
>> Good day, respected regulars and other readers!
>>
>> Quick question: At file scope, suppose we have:
>>
>>     extern void foo(int Bar);
>>     void foo(int bar) { return; }
>>
>> (Please note the case.)  I seem to recall some bit about the former
>> parameter identifiers being ignored, but can't seem to find that bit.
>> Does anyone recall if that's so?  It's not an identifier-list, but a
>> parameter-list.
>>
>> Thank you for your time.
>
> n1570
>
> 6.2 Concepts
> 6.2.1 Scopes of identifiers
>
> 4 If the declarator or type specifier
>    that declares the identifier appears
>    within the list of parameter declarations in a function prototype
>    (not part of a function definition),
>    the identifier has function prototype scope,
>    which terminates at the end of the function declarator.
>

I'm pretty sure that this is the one I was having "reader's block" or 
"finder's block" with.  Thanks a lot, pete!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19944

Shao Miller wrote:
> 
> On 4/25/2012 18:20, pete wrote:
> > Shao Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> Good day, respected regulars and other readers!
> >>
> >> Quick question: At file scope, suppose we have:
> >>
> >>     extern void foo(int Bar);
> >>     void foo(int bar) { return; }
> >>
> >> (Please note the case.)  I seem to recall some bit about the former
> >> parameter identifiers being ignored, but can't seem to find that bit.
> >> Does anyone recall if that's so?  It's not an identifier-list, but a
> >> parameter-list.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your time.
> >
> > n1570
> >
> > 6.2 Concepts
> > 6.2.1 Scopes of identifiers
> >
> > 4 If the declarator or type specifier
> >    that declares the identifier appears
> >    within the list of parameter declarations in a function prototype
> >    (not part of a function definition),
> >    the identifier has function prototype scope,
> >    which terminates at the end of the function declarator.
> >
> 
> I'm pretty sure that this is the one I was having "reader's block" or
> "finder's block" with.  Thanks a lot, pete!

You're welcome.

-- 
pete

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web