Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 00:49:51 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <vt712u$1m84p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <8634enhcui.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vsph6b$ce6m$5@dont-email.me> <86ldsdfocs.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <20250406161323.00005809@yahoo.com> <86ecy5fjin.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <20250406190321.000001dc@yahoo.com> <86plhodtsw.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <20250407210248.00006457@yahoo.com> <vt15lq$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 01:49:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d4d34b1d7ed35db6137f2b3fedef19a1";
	logging-data="1777817"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rEfbizDBk4olBDBSrD8fN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1A6hEPJdfBksKNPBba2bYf3rWhI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <86o6x5at05.fsf@linuxsc.com>
Bytes: 4922

On 09/04/2025 23:07, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 
>> On 09/04/2025 00:27, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> If you want to make a point or ask a question about C code,
>>>>> SHOW THE CODE.  And show all of it.  Don't make people guess
>>>>> by showing only some of the code or by giving just a description.
>>>>
>>>> I'm showing the code but you keep snipping it!  [...]
>>>
>>> No, I don't.  Don't be so obtuse.  I included the code I was
>>> originally commenting on, in my first followup.  My comment about
>>> showing code was about your second posting.  Let me repeat the two
>>> important paragraphs (quoted above) taken from that posting:
>>>
>>>>>> I get an incompatible error (from the example you snipped) even when I
>>>>>> remove both struct tags.
>>>
>>> The phrase "even when I remove both struct tags" describes code, it
>>> doesn't show the code.
>>
>> I showed this example a few lines later [in an earlier posting]
>> which has both struct tags omitted:
> 
> There is a simple lesson that you need to learn:

Please don't be patronising. We are not kids in your PL class.


> When someone is responding to a post, they are responding ONLY to
> the content in the posting they are responing to;  not to some
> earlier posting in the same thread, not to a different posting
> submitted two weeks ago, not to what you meant to say but didn't,
> not to thoughts in your head but that you didn't say, but ONLY TO
> WHAT IS SAID IN THE POSTING BEING RESPONDED TO.
> 
> If you can learn to follow this simple rule everyone in the
> newsgroup will be better off, including you.

I'm not sure what your gripe is other than maybe I picked up on 
something you got wrong. The discussion was about two struct types like 
this:

    typedef struct tag1 {...} T1;
    typedef struct tag2 {...} T2;

and whether T1 and T2 were compatible or not. You said:

"and those types are not compatible, because the two struct tags are 
different."

In this case the tags would be "tag1" and "tag2". I then said:

"I get an incompatible error (from the example you snipped) even when I
remove both struct tags."

That means removing "tag1" and "tag2" so the example above looks like this:

    typedef struct {...} T1;
    typedef struct {...} T2;

Here, you can't say the struct tags are different, as they are not 
visible! Maybe there are internal ones that differ, but that is not 
obvious. What /can/ be seen from the source is two distinct types.

But it seems you've lost interest in that, and are berating me for not 
illustrating what:

    typedef struct tag1 {...} T1;
    typedef struct tag2 {...} T2;

might look like with "both tags removed". I think you also wanted me to 
illustrate what it might look like when both have the same tag, after I 
said they would clash in both in same scope. That is, you wanted an 
example like this:

    typedef struct tag1 {...} T1;
    {typedef struct tag1 {...} T2; ... }

(This one was interesting to me (obviously no longer to you) because the 
tags are now clearly identical, yet T1/T2 are still incompatible.

As I concluded, your assertion about compatibility being based on tags 
being the same or not didn't seem right.)