Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #161260 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-06 13:16 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 391 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-06 15:27 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 06:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 18:06 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-06 06:34 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 16:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 14:59 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-06 18:58 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-06 21:12 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 21:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 15:13 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 23:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 17:02 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:42 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 19:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-07 17:15 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 20:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 22:17 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 21:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 13:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 13:36 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 08:52 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 11:06 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 13:25 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 13:00 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 07:25 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 17:53 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 19:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-07 22:26 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 00:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 11:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 11:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 19:57 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 15:10 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-06 14:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 16:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-06 14:20 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-06 15:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-08 08:06 -0600
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 07:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-08 17:09 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 16:00 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 17:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 18:59 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 00:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 16:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-09 11:40 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 17:36 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 17:48 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 20:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 23:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 11:14 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 12:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 15:30 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 15:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 16:55 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-10 17:23 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 20:47 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 17:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-11 11:25 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 12:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-11 21:14 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-11 19:46 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 00:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 22:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 23:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-11 23:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-12 00:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 01:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-12 00:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 11:08 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-12 16:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 18:36 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 12:42 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 14:13 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-10 15:16 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 16:45 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-10 16:56 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 19:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 22:37 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-09 15:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 23:18 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-08 09:25 -0600
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 16:13 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-08 21:43 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 15:03 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-06-24 10:33 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-24 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-01 17:57 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-11 00:26 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 09:49 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-27 15:47 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 10:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-07-27 23:48 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 00:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 18:30 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 13:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 15:44 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 15:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 17:49 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 17:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 23:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 16:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 19:20 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 11:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-29 17:10 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 19:07 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 19:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 15:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 19:49 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:03 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 23:16 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 01:51 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-31 13:42 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 14:56 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-31 19:33 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 19:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-31 21:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 23:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-08-01 00:43 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:54 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 13:36 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 13:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 14:24 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 16:08 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 16:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-04 16:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 18:40 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 19:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-07 10:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-07 17:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 08:51 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 15:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-08-08 17:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 20:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 20:21 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 20:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 22:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 22:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 22:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 23:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-09 01:46 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 10:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 03:59 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 13:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-09 16:08 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 16:51 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-09 16:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 17:09 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-08 15:30 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 00:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 20:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-09 15:05 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 23:48 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 16:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 01:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 17:52 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 11:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 11:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 20:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 03:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 16:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 20:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 22:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-08-09 17:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 18:27 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 01:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 12:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 02:04 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 09:42 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 17:19 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 20:19 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 16:51 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 21:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 19:10 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 16:08 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-08 19:56 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 14:35 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-10 21:41 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 23:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 20:15 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 08:34 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 03:46 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 14:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 07:26 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 15:04 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 03:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 13:55 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 07:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 13:44 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-02 01:37 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 14:29 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 18:54 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 20:04 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 17:04 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 11:09 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 13:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 08:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 15:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 16:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 16:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 18:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-08-11 11:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 19:45 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 15:55 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 22:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-11 22:47 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:00 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 10:29 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 12:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 16:28 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-12 15:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 17:55 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 16:59 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 19:44 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 19:02 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 20:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 11:10 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 23:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 16:52 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:22 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 19:51 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 16:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 18:45 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 22:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 21:09 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:30 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 10:39 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 12:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 16:44 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 17:20 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 20:00 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 00:44 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 10:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 17:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 16:00 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ike Naar <ike@rie.sdf.org> - 2021-08-09 05:46 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:38 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:57 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 10:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-08-04 11:48 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 19:34 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 19:18 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 22:35 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 23:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 01:46 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 17:20 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 20:24 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:55 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 16:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-07-30 09:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 18:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 17:38 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 20:10 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 21:50 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 00:08 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 16:31 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 19:57 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 23:28 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 15:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 20:08 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 22:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 00:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 16:36 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 02:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 21:14 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 11:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 15:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:14 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 16:25 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:52 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 16:50 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 18:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-08-01 01:38 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-08-01 19:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 14:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2021-08-01 19:27 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 02:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 20:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-31 02:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 21:23 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 11:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 12:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-07-31 21:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:54 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 10:47 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Dill <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 06:09 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 14:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-29 13:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 16:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-30 05:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 17:14 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-28 02:01 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 19:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 12:41 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 09:02 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 15:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 10:19 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 15:58 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2021-07-30 11:28 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-06 05:20 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-06 05:09 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-11 12:33 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 11:50 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 12:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 17:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 13:49 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 13:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 15:05 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 14:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 18:35 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 18:14 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 11:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-17 08:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-17 16:22 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 17:57 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-17 17:53 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 21:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-18 11:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 22:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s9lusm$5d5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161310 |
On 07/06/2021 21:55, Bart wrote: > On 07/06/2021 20:03, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes: > >>> Now, I know you say (strictly according to the standard) that the type >>> name is "struct Foo" instead of "Foo", however from the pure >>> syntactical perspective this is a combination of a keyword and a name, >>> so in C user defined type names are required to include a keyword in >>> their name; this is not consistent with other type names. >> >> A type name in C isn't just an identifer optionally preceded by keyword. >> It can be a sequence of keywords (unsigned long long int), or a >> combination of keywords and punctuation (void(*)(void)), and can even >> include expressions (unsigned char[2*x+y][time()%60]). The only way a C >> type name can be a single identifier is via a typedef -- a feature that >> was added to the language relatively late, and that has required parsers >> to be a bit more complicated. >> >> In the absence of typedefs, every type name in C has a syntactic marker >> to indicate whether it's an integer or floating-point type (one of >> several keywords), a pointer (*), a function (()), an array ([]), or a >> struct, union, or enum (struct, union, and enum keywords). > > You're missing the point a little. > > One purpose of a user-type is mop up all that mess into single > identifer, which can be used without any other keywords or other syntax. > No, that would be the purpose of having type aliases - "typedef" in C. The purpose of user-defined types is to be able to make types that are different from existing types in some aspect. > That doesn't happen with the user-identifier assigned to a struct tag. > You have to prefer it with 'struct', to indicate it has to look into the > right namespace. > Or you combine the two features - the creation of a new type with "struct", and the convenient aliasing with "typedef". > It's a different kind of named entity than a typedef, and unique in that > it /requires/ the combination of keyword and user-identifier. It's different in that it serves a different purpose. > >> >> Recall that C evolved from a language that didn't have types. The idea >> of *naming* types was added, and the idea of naming types with a single >> identifier was added even later. >> >>> I know that in practice it's no big deal, it's just something you have >>> to learn early on and you get used to it. >>> It's just that I am somewhat of a fan of language theory, syntax and >>> semantics. >>> That's why I like the C++ syntax for this considerably better. >> >> C++ still has all of C's syntactic quirks. I agree that being able to >> use the tag (what C calls a "class name") as a type name is an >> improvement -- and that it couldn't be adopted in C without breaking >> existing code. >> >> Given C's rules, my personal preference is to write out "struct foo" >> rather than creating a typedef > > So? Just name the type 'struct_T' instead of 'T'. People have different choices here. Some people prefer to view their types with a little more abstraction, and would tend to use "T" (and there's a fair correlation with preferring "char* p"). Others prefer to think more in terms of how values of the type are used, and like "struct T" because structs are used in different ways from scalers (programmers with those preferences are perhaps more likely to write "char *p"). C caters for both preferences - and both are in common use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 21:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <OHvvI.2502$js1.2327@fx11.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161313 |
On 07/06/2021 21:17, David Brown wrote:
> On 07/06/2021 21:55, Bart wrote:
>> One purpose of a user-type is mop up all that mess into single
>> identifer, which can be used without any other keywords or other syntax.
They all do the same thing. C allows anonymous structs (with struct{})
in a similar way to anonymous arrays ([]) and pointers (*). Or you can
name then, using typedef.
But structs additionally have the concept of a type-tag to do the same
thing, with their own namespace and their own special syntax to
distinguish such a name from a regular typedef name.
The only reason anyone has come up with for such a useless feature is
that it was there first. But when did typedef come along? It must be 40
years ago.
But since the language didn't also provide a way around the
self-referential struct problem, and compilers wouldn't deprecate it
anyway, people continued using these two parallel schemes.
>> It's a different kind of named entity than a typedef, and unique in that
>> it /requires/ the combination of keyword and user-identifier.
>
> It's different in that it serves a different purpose.
Which is? I still don't get it. Any struct can have:
typedef? Tag? Declare vars using:
No No struct {...} a,b,c;
Yes No T a,b,c;
No Yes struct Tag a,b,c;
Yes Yes T a,b,c; OR struct Tag a,b,c;
Someone please tell why the language needs such a table with two
columns, or why it is desirable, instead of:
typedef?
No struct {...} a,b,c;
Yes T a,b,c;
or (if I made it like mine) just:
typedef?
Yes T a,b,c;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87tum9qvaj.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #161310 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 07/06/2021 20:03, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> writes:
>>> Now, I know you say (strictly according to the standard) that the type
>>> name is "struct Foo" instead of "Foo", however from the pure
>>> syntactical perspective this is a combination of a keyword and a name,
>>> so in C user defined type names are required to include a keyword in
>>> their name; this is not consistent with other type names.
>> A type name in C isn't just an identifer optionally preceded by
>> keyword.
>> It can be a sequence of keywords (unsigned long long int), or a
>> combination of keywords and punctuation (void(*)(void)), and can even
>> include expressions (unsigned char[2*x+y][time()%60]). The only way a C
>> type name can be a single identifier is via a typedef -- a feature that
>> was added to the language relatively late, and that has required parsers
>> to be a bit more complicated.
>> In the absence of typedefs, every type name in C has a syntactic
>> marker
>> to indicate whether it's an integer or floating-point type (one of
>> several keywords), a pointer (*), a function (()), an array ([]), or a
>> struct, union, or enum (struct, union, and enum keywords).
>
> You're missing the point a little.
I'm not missing the point. I just disagree with you.
C does not have a convention of using a single identifier as a type
name. See N1570 6.7.7 for more information on C type names. I do not
choose to impose such a convention using typedefs (unless the existing
code I'm working on does so).
[...]
>> Given C's rules, my personal preference is to write out "struct foo"
>> rather than creating a typedef
>
> So? Just name the type 'struct_T' instead of 'T'.
Or I can just use a space instead of an underscore.
I understand that the need to use the struct keyword bothers you.
There's no need to repeat yourself.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f8ca427-a028-475c-8e26-19262509d80bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #161314 |
On Monday, 7 June 2021 at 21:22:55 UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > > C does not have a convention of using a single identifier as a type > name. See N1570 6.7.7 for more information on C type names. I do not > choose to impose such a convention using typedefs (unless the existing > code I'm working on does so). > I suspect that a lot of house style guides say that structs must be typedefed. A lot will also mandate the stdint defines for fixed width integers, which has the effect of reducing the use cases for types like "unsigned long" almost to nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 08:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s9kfn9$plt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161282 |
On 06/06/2021 22:02, Bart wrote:
> On 06/06/2021 20:12, David Brown wrote:
>> On 06/06/2021 18:58, Manfred wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2021 5:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
>
>>>> typedef struct Nodetag Node;
>>>>
>>>> struct Nodetag {
>>>> Nodetag *next; // error: unknown type name ‘Nodetag’
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> typedef struct Nodetag Node;
>>>
>>> struct Nodetag {
>>> int data;
>>> Node *next;
>>> };
>>
>>
>> Or even:
>>
>> typedef struct Node Node;
>>
>> struct Node {
>> int data;
>> Node *next;
>> };
>>
>> There's no need for an extra name here.
>
> Unless you want to avoid any confusion. Since you can come across this:
>
> Node* A;
> struct Node* B;
>
> Does one of those lines have a 'struct' missing, or does the other have
> a 'struct' that shouldn't be there?
>
> The eye picks up such inconsistencies; it creates a distraction.
>
> Allowing two ways of denoting the same user-type is also sloppy.
>
What you call "sloppy", others might call "flexible". You are, IIRC, a
fan of case-insensitive languages. Are they sloppy for letting you
write "foo" and "Foo" to mean the same thing? Or are you just engaging
in your favourite hobby - taking something that other people see as a
convenient way to write clearer code and using it for yet another
meaningless rant against C?
I agree that it is good to be consistent when you write your code, and I
would expect a programmer to choose either "struct Node" /or/ "Node",
and use it consistently. Generally, you'd only find the typedef at all
if the programmer intends to use "Node" consistently.
So there is no confusion that I can see.
(On the other hand, I think code like "struct Node Node;" is a lot more
likely to cause confusion.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 11:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ocmvI.707714$7Kb.680010@fx37.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161288 |
On 07/06/2021 07:52, David Brown wrote: > On 06/06/2021 22:02, Bart wrote: >> Unless you want to avoid any confusion. Since you can come across this: >> >> Node* A; >> struct Node* B; >> >> Does one of those lines have a 'struct' missing, or does the other have >> a 'struct' that shouldn't be there? >> >> The eye picks up such inconsistencies; it creates a distraction. >> >> Allowing two ways of denoting the same user-type is also sloppy. >> > > What you call "sloppy", others might call "flexible". You are, IIRC, a > fan of case-insensitive languages. Are they sloppy for letting you > write "foo" and "Foo" to mean the same thing? You mean in the same way that "bart", "Bart" or "BART" all refer to me? Or the fact that if I say them out loud, they all sound identical too? > Or are you just engaging > in your favourite hobby - taking something that other people see as a > convenient way to write clearer code and using it for yet another > meaningless rant against C? No. For me case sensitivity means code that ISN'T clearer because people exploit that subtle difference in case between otherwise identical names: to use them for different purposes not just within the same scope, but across a program, where you have to keep doing a double-take. Here are some wonderful examples from sqlite3.c: Action action affinity Affinity B b bIn bin BusyHandler busyHandler Clsid clsid CLSID DbPage dbpage debuginfo DebugInfo dwContextHelpId dwContextHelpID dwFlags dwflags Edx eDx errmsg errMsg hwndActive hWndActive message Message MESSAGE nExt next Next szPMA szPma WalIndexHdr walIndexHdr > I agree that it is good to be consistent when you write your code, and I > would expect a programmer to choose either "struct Node" /or/ "Node", > and use it consistently. Generally, you'd only find the typedef at all > if the programmer intends to use "Node" consistently. My manually written C code only ever defines structs as part of a typedef. And only uses tags when necessary to define the struct. It is then subsequently referred to by the typedef name. My automatically generated C code does the opposite; never uses typedefs for structs (because there, who cares?). But in any other language, we just wouldn't be discussing this at all. You create a new type, be it a struct or anything else, and it's called T. End of story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 13:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s9kvni$ah$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161289 |
On 07/06/2021 12:06, Bart wrote: > On 07/06/2021 07:52, David Brown wrote: >> On 06/06/2021 22:02, Bart wrote: > >>> Unless you want to avoid any confusion. Since you can come across this: >>> >>> Node* A; >>> struct Node* B; >>> >>> Does one of those lines have a 'struct' missing, or does the other have >>> a 'struct' that shouldn't be there? >>> >>> The eye picks up such inconsistencies; it creates a distraction. >>> >>> Allowing two ways of denoting the same user-type is also sloppy. >>> >> >> What you call "sloppy", others might call "flexible". You are, IIRC, a >> fan of case-insensitive languages. Are they sloppy for letting you >> write "foo" and "Foo" to mean the same thing? > > You mean in the same way that "bart", "Bart" or "BART" all refer to me? > > Or the fact that if I say them out loud, they all sound identical too? So you are happy with multiple ways of writing "bart" or "BART" that look very different, and would immediately be viewed as different identifiers and therefore different meanings to people familiar with case-sensitive programming languages. Yet you would be upset with two versions of writing the same type in C that are really quite obvious to C programmers - and where any mistakes (in real code) would be caught by the compiler. > >> Or are you just engaging >> in your favourite hobby - taking something that other people see as a >> convenient way to write clearer code and using it for yet another >> meaningless rant against C? > > No. For me case sensitivity means code that ISN'T clearer because people > exploit that subtle difference in case between otherwise identical > names: to use them for different purposes not just within the same > scope, but across a program, where you have to keep doing a double-take. > Ah, it's the old "some people write code I didn't like, therefore the language is bad" argument. You do like to take your own personal opinion and think of it as global rules that should apply to everyone. And you do like to take the worst (in your not so humble opinion) examples and assume all code is written that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 13:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lTnvI.590118$PPIc.288620@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161290 |
On 07/06/2021 12:25, David Brown wrote: > On 07/06/2021 12:06, Bart wrote: >> You mean in the same way that "bart", "Bart" or "BART" all refer to me? >> >> Or the fact that if I say them out loud, they all sound identical too? > > So you are happy with multiple ways of writing "bart" or "BART" that > look very different, and would immediately be viewed as different > identifiers and therefore different meanings to people familiar with > case-sensitive programming languages. Yet you would be upset with two > versions of writing the same type in C that are really quite obvious to > C programmers - and where any mistakes (in real code) would be caught by > the compiler. The complaint is really about case-sensitivity in general, across languages, file systems, OS command lines and, worst because YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE TYPING, in passwords. It is just an almighty pain. Fortunately for the most important situations, common sense prevails and case-insensitivity is used. (User-names, the first parts of web-addresses, emails and so on. Google searches too!) > Ah, it's the old "some people write code I didn't like, therefore the > language is bad" argument. You do like to take your own personal > opinion and think of it as global rules that should apply to everyone. > And you do like to take the worst (in your not so humble opinion) > examples and assume all code is written that way. So, you don't take the same advantage of being able to use Foo and foo? If that case, why do you need a case-sensitive language?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 07:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b0c20d8-6bd1-4ce1-9006-452d8c52be9bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #161291 |
On Monday, 7 June 2021 at 13:00:30 UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > So, you don't take the same advantage of being able to use Foo and foo? > > If that case, why do you need a case-sensitive language? > If the language is case-insensitive, you don't want the same identifier to appear in the source in different cases. That confuses anyone who doesn't know that the language is case insensitive, or who doesn't know that the programmer who wrote the code knows that the language is case insensitive, or who hasn't been told why such an odd practice is followed (there might be reasons, such as attaching metadata to an identifier). So in fact what you want is not a case insensitive language, but a language which disallows identifiers which are identical except in case. Alternatively a language which enforces rules such as "local variables must be lower case, functions must start with an uppercase letter". There are good arguments against allowing C's free for all. Virtually every coding standard is more restrictive than C in the identifiers that it allows. However backwards compatibility is all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 16:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eZqvI.122946$Ye1.1259@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161294 |
On 07/06/2021 15:25, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, 7 June 2021 at 13:00:30 UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> >> So, you don't take the same advantage of being able to use Foo and foo? >> >> If that case, why do you need a case-sensitive language? >> > If the language is case-insensitive, you don't want the same identifier to > appear in the source in different cases. Why is that a problem? You think that, because a syntax is case-insensitive, that coders will delight is applying random combinations of case in their identifiers? In any case, you will /know/ they are all the same. In my own coding style, I mainly use all-lower-case except when highlighting debug or temporary code, then I might use all upper case. In also allows me to import functions such as 'MessageBox' and call them as 'messagebox' (ie. not need to remember the exact capitalisation). Or C's printf as PRINTF if it is temporary code. In C however, once someone decides the pattern of capitalisation, then you have to use exactly that pattern. With a danger that, if you get it wrong, it may inadvertently match the same identifier from an outer scope with a different pattern. > That confuses anyone who doesn't > know that the language is case insensitive, Fortran, Ada, Pascal and the Algols are case-insensitive. Nim for something more recent. But one prerequisite when using a language is knowing something about it! Including knowing it if is case insensitive or not. > or who doesn't know that the > programmer who wrote the code knows that the language is case > insensitive, or who hasn't been told why such an odd practice is followed > (there might be reasons, such as attaching metadata to an identifier). Why do people think it is odd all of a sudden? One of the most ridiculous things is case-senstivity in a CLI. So you can't type COPY, it has to be copy, because COPY means something else. (What does it mean? What does Copy or CoPy mean?) The next most ridiculous thing is case-sensititivity in file names. Just remember the exact capitalisation and don't accidentally use the wrong one. (Imagine 64 versions of hello.c in your directory.) > So in fact what you want is not a case insensitive language, but a language > which disallows identifiers which are identical except in case. Alternatively > a language which enforces rules such as "local variables must be lower case, > functions must start with an uppercase letter". Guidelines can be enforced in a case-insensitive language too. What you can't do however is use Foo for a function name, and foo for a local variable in the same scope (as well as foo for a struct tag /and/ label name, plus fOO, fOo and foO variations for those, and FoO, FOo and FOO for functions) as C does. > There are good arguments against allowing C's free for all. Virtually every coding > standard is more restrictive than C in the identifiers that it allows. However > backwards compatibility is all. > All my languages can interface with case-senstitive FFI names. Even if they clash when case is ignored.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210607090844.675@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #161296 |
On 2021-06-07, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 07/06/2021 15:25, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Monday, 7 June 2021 at 13:00:30 UTC+1, Bart wrote: >>> >>> So, you don't take the same advantage of being able to use Foo and foo? >>> >>> If that case, why do you need a case-sensitive language? >>> >> If the language is case-insensitive, you don't want the same identifier to >> appear in the source in different cases. > > Why is that a problem? You think that, because a syntax is > case-insensitive, that coders will delight is applying random > combinations of case in their identifiers? In any case, you will /know/ > they are all the same. When you say case insensitivity, what does that mean? Are these considered the same identifier? δέλτα Δέλτα How about Japanese katakana vs. hiragana. Are these the same identifier? スウジ すうじ すうジ スウじ They both say "suuji"; can you declare using one and reference elsewhere using the others? -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 17:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <P9svI.74290$jM2.59411@fx02.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161298 |
On 07/06/2021 17:15, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2021-06-07, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 07/06/2021 15:25, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Monday, 7 June 2021 at 13:00:30 UTC+1, Bart wrote: >>>> >>>> So, you don't take the same advantage of being able to use Foo and foo? >>>> >>>> If that case, why do you need a case-sensitive language? >>>> >>> If the language is case-insensitive, you don't want the same identifier to >>> appear in the source in different cases. >> >> Why is that a problem? You think that, because a syntax is >> case-insensitive, that coders will delight is applying random >> combinations of case in their identifiers? In any case, you will /know/ >> they are all the same. > > When you say case insensitivity, what does that mean? Are these > considered the same identifier? > > δέλτα > > Δέλτα > > How about Japanese katakana vs. hiragana. Are these the same > identifier? > > スウジ すうじ > > すうジ スウじ > > They both say "suuji"; can you declare using one and reference elsewhere > using the others? I'm mainly talking about language source code which uses the ASCII alphabet for keywords and user-identifiers. I'm not concerned with other elements of source code such as comments, or string literals, or any data used by the program. Or elements representing file names (eg. names of include files). That means considering A-Z and a-z in keywords and identifiers as interchangable. As for the answers to your questions; in my languages they are not identifiers. Some more unusual identifiers are allowed using a "`" prefix, for example, keywords, or numbers, which can be tweaked for utf8 sequences, but ` makes it case-sensitive in that case. Then, they are considered equivalent when the byte-sequences match, not glyphs nor meanings. In languages such as Fortran and Ada, you'd have to ask experts on those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 19:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s9lmv4$cna$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161299 |
On 07/06/2021 17:53, Bart wrote: > On 07/06/2021 17:15, Kaz Kylheku wrote: ... >> When you say case insensitivity, what does that mean? Are these >> considered the same identifier? >> >> δέλτα >> >> Δέλτα >> >> How about Japanese katakana vs. hiragana. Are these the same >> identifier? >> >> スウジ すうじ >> >> すうジ スウじ >> >> They both say "suuji"; can you declare using one and reference elsewhere >> using the others? ... > As for the answers to your questions; in my languages they are not > identifiers. Some more unusual identifiers are allowed using a "`" > prefix, for example, keywords, or numbers, which can be tweaked for utf8 > sequences, but ` makes it case-sensitive in that case. If you want to include unusual characters in identifiers (perhaps in order to interface with external routines which allow then) is there any reason not to use \ rather than the ` character? That would at least be consistent with how backslash is often used in strings. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210607152608.837@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #161299 |
On 2021-06-07, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 07/06/2021 17:15, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2021-06-07, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 07/06/2021 15:25, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> On Monday, 7 June 2021 at 13:00:30 UTC+1, Bart wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So, you don't take the same advantage of being able to use Foo and foo? >>>>> >>>>> If that case, why do you need a case-sensitive language? >>>>> >>>> If the language is case-insensitive, you don't want the same identifier to >>>> appear in the source in different cases. >>> >>> Why is that a problem? You think that, because a syntax is >>> case-insensitive, that coders will delight is applying random >>> combinations of case in their identifiers? In any case, you will /know/ >>> they are all the same. >> >> When you say case insensitivity, what does that mean? Are these >> considered the same identifier? >> >> δέλτα >> >> Δέλτα >> >> How about Japanese katakana vs. hiragana. Are these the same >> identifier? >> >> スウジ すうじ >> >> すうジ スウじ >> >> They both say "suuji"; can you declare using one and reference elsewhere >> using the others? > > I'm mainly talking about language source code which uses the ASCII > alphabet for keywords and user-identifiers. But you're convinced that your perspective is broader than that of anyone else here, right? -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-08 00:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iQxvI.156614$Ye1.27245@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161318 |
On 07/06/2021 23:26, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2021-06-07, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> I'm mainly talking about language source code which uses the ASCII >> alphabet for keywords and user-identifiers. > > But you're convinced that your perspective is broader than that of > anyone else here, right? > No, but you seem to be convinced that yours is. Mine is a pragmatic approach: many languages do only support this restricted subset of characters for identifiers, like C. Programmers don't care as much as you seem to think. Unicode is a complete minefield, and I think it's best to keep it out of the core parts of a programming language, and allow it mainly in source comments, source string literals, file names relevant to the compiler, program data, and libraries. But every language makes its own choice. Long ago I did provide facilities in one of my script languages for keywords and such to use an extended alphabet (then, for western european languages), but users weren't bothered; they got on fine with the English! Besides, there is an awful lot more to it than just allowing Unicode in identifiers, or even those aspects I mentioned above. Suppose I did support the Japanese alphabet for identifiers in my language implementation: * Keywords would still be in English * Named operators are still in English * Standard type names are in English * As would be the names of standard library functions, types, macros, structs, enums and variables * As would be the case with the vast majority of third party libraries * Compiler error messages would be in English * Compiler options would be based on English * Entry point names would still be 'main' or 'start'. Etc. So any programmer will still need to encounter English in many places. If they really want to use their native language for identifiers (and can deal with the problem of many distinct characters having identical glyphs among many others), there are languages that will do that. Including mine with a tweak, in a bit that you snipped, and where I said it would be case-sensitive as case-insensitivity only applies for A-Z/a-z. So, what is your point? That the existence of alphabets where letter case is poorly defined, or meaningless, means we shouldn't be able to define it for our A-Z? What would you do about languages such as Fortran and Ada that are still used, but are case-insensitive? Note that even C is case-insensitive is a few places: 0xABC or 0xabc 1.2e3 or 1.2E3 100ull or 100ULL u'A' or U'A'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 17:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87pmwxqky2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #161319 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Note that even C is case-insensitive is a few places:
>
> 0xABC or 0xabc
>
> 1.2e3 or 1.2E3
>
> 100ull or 100ULL
>
> u'A' or U'A'
u'A' is of type char16_t. U'A' is of type char32_t.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-08 11:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <npHvI.52730$ie1.26043@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161320 |
On 08/06/2021 01:06, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> Note that even C is case-insensitive [in] a few places:
>>
>> 0xABC or 0xabc
>>
>> 1.2e3 or 1.2E3
>>
>> 100ull or 100ULL
>>
>> u'A' or U'A'
>
> u'A' is of type char16_t. U'A' is of type char32_t.
>
OK. So:
0x123 or 0X123
0x123p3 or 0x123P3
#include <stdio.h> or #include <STDIO.H> (on Windows)
The point is, in such contexts, 'A' and 'a' for example are deemed to be
interchangeable. This is the case even though there exist alphabets
where such equivalences don't exist for some or all of the letters.
People are trying to use the latter examples as reasons to banish the
concept of case equivalence in computer systems even for alphabets where
it is perfectly well-defined.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-08 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87v96onqnx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #161321 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 08/06/2021 01:06, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Note that even C is case-insensitive [in] a few places:
>>>
>>> 0xABC or 0xabc
>>>
>>> 1.2e3 or 1.2E3
>>>
>>> 100ull or 100ULL
>>>
>>> u'A' or U'A'
>> u'A' is of type char16_t. U'A' is of type char32_t.
>>
>
> OK. So:
>
> 0x123 or 0X123
>
> 0x123p3 or 0x123P3
>
> #include <stdio.h> or #include <STDIO.H> (on Windows)
The interpretation of the h-char-sequence or q-char-sequence in a
#include directive is implementation-defined. The standard says nothing
about case sensitivity. (A conforming Windows C compiler could reject
<STDIO.H>.)
You're right, C is not entirely case-sensitive. I don't recall anyone
claiming otherwise.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 18:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s9lmhb$9cf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161289 |
On 07/06/2021 11:06, Bart wrote: > On 07/06/2021 07:52, David Brown wrote: >> On 06/06/2021 22:02, Bart wrote: > >>> Unless you want to avoid any confusion. Since you can come across this: >>> >>> Node* A; >>> struct Node* B; >>> >>> Does one of those lines have a 'struct' missing, or does the other have >>> a 'struct' that shouldn't be there? >>> >>> The eye picks up such inconsistencies; it creates a distraction. >>> >>> Allowing two ways of denoting the same user-type is also sloppy. >>> >> >> What you call "sloppy", others might call "flexible". You are, IIRC, a >> fan of case-insensitive languages. Are they sloppy for letting you >> write "foo" and "Foo" to mean the same thing? > > You mean in the same way that "bart", "Bart" or "BART" all refer to me? So does bartc. So does whatever your real name is. But they would be different if used as identifiers. IOW I don't think you can use "refers to me" as a justification for case insensitivity. > > Or the fact that if I say them out loud, they all sound identical too? Similar could be said for lastchild and last_child also for index2 and index_2 and even index_two > >> Or are you just engaging >> in your favourite hobby - taking something that other people see as a >> convenient way to write clearer code and using it for yet another >> meaningless rant against C? > > No. For me case sensitivity means code that ISN'T clearer because people > exploit that subtle difference in case between otherwise identical > names: to use them for different purposes not just within the same > scope, but across a program, where you have to keep doing a double-take. I have some sympathy for your position but IMO a language which uses case-insensitive identifiers really needs an IDE to convert all instances of an identifier to the casing used where the identifier is defined. E.g. if you'd defined int Bartc then anywhere else where you typed bartc should be autoconverted to the casing used in the definition. The problem with that is that not everyone wants to use a language-specific or even language-aware IDE. Some of us prefer source files to be plain text. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-07 19:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <G_tvI.49456$ie1.40251@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #161303 |
On 07/06/2021 18:54, James Harris wrote: > On 07/06/2021 11:06, Bart wrote: >> You mean in the same way that "bart", "Bart" or "BART" all refer to me? > > So does bartc. So does whatever your real name is. I think you know what I'm getting at here. If I signed a card bart, Bart or BART, they would know who it's from (apart from there being not many people called Bart). If I used BART instead of Bart, nobody would wonder who on earth that might be. So in real life, case is ignored, unless it is for some special emphasis or special meaning (like Bay Area Rapid Transit). I can translate a poem to all caps, or all lower case, or every word capitalised, and people can still understand it. Random capitalisation might be a bit more work though! But they would be > different if used as identifiers. IOW I don't think you can use "refers > to me" as a justification for case insensitivity. > >> >> Or the fact that if I say them out loud, they all sound identical too? > > Similar could be said for > > lastchild > > and > > last_child > > also for > > index2 > > and > > index_2 > > and even > > index_two Most of those use underscores that I'm not that keen on either. In some languages (I think Nim) underscores are not significant: A_B and AB are the same. It's just used for readability. I don't use underscores much. >> No. For me case sensitivity means code that ISN'T clearer because >> people exploit that subtle difference in case between otherwise >> identical names: to use them for different purposes not just within >> the same scope, but across a program, where you have to keep doing a >> double-take. > > I have some sympathy for your position but IMO a language which uses > case-insensitive identifiers really needs an IDE to convert all > instances of an identifier to the casing used where the identifier is > defined. E.g. if you'd defined > > int Bartc > > then anywhere else where you typed > > bartc > > should be autoconverted to the casing used in the definition. They way it usually works is that "bartc" is used everywhere, or the same consistent name, But even when mixed, it doesn't matter because they are the same name. You're still thinking in case-sensitive terms. Have a go with Windows which is a case-insensitive OS. Create a file called Hello. Then type: > dir HELLO it will still find it. Now edit a file called hello; it will edit the same file. Now, the file system works a little like you say because file names retain their original case of when they were created, so here will list the file as Hello. I don't do that except for FFI names or ones starting with `; names are usually converted to lower case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web