Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Mon, 05 May 2025 16:36:36 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <87v7qefx4r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <20250406190321.000001dc@yahoo.com>
	<86plhodtsw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250407210248.00006457@yahoo.com>
	<vt15lq$bjs0$3@dont-email.me> <vt2lp6$1qtjd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt31m5$2513i$1@dont-email.me> <vt3d4g$2djqe$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt3iqh$2ka99$1@dont-email.me> <868qoaeezc.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vt3oeo$2oq3p$1@dont-email.me> <86mscqcpy1.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vt48go$35hh3$2@dont-email.me> <86iknecjz8.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vt4del$3a9sk$1@dont-email.me> <86o6x5at05.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vt712u$1m84p$1@dont-email.me> <20250409170901.947@kylheku.com>
	<vt88bk$2rv8r$1@dont-email.me>
	<87wmbs45oa.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86o6w64ppv.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 01:36:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="200f1b2c855e9fa31fd1080bfdd034d6";
	logging-data="1644012"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ST4JkmzlEHGtJQIgYa2Hv"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ol3n0gqvvOQrsV/wUFeEbXSl+uA=
	sha1:6KyOMa7wnAcgF0FtLqY9LFrOyeI=
Bytes: 2720

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Someone, not anyone but the all-knowing Tim, said:  "and those types
>>> are not compatible, because the two struct tags are different."
>>>
>>> Do you agree with that?  Or is there something more to making two types
>>> be incompatible?
>>
>> I don't recall the exact discussion and I wouldn't try to speak
>> for Tim, but I suspect he was saying that the fact that the two
>> struct tags are different is enough to know that the types are
>> not compatible.  [...]
>
> Considering the circumstances, rather than focusing on what I
> (may have) meant, it seems better to focus on what is true,
> whether I meant it or not.

Feel free to do so, rather than resurrecting a post from nearly a
month ago to criticize me for what I chose to focus on and adding
nothing to the actual discussion.

The discussion died out weeks ago.  Why would you resurrect it?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */