Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: bart 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: References: <8634enhcui.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86ldsdfocs.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250406161323.00005809@yahoo.com> <86ecy5fjin.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250406190321.000001dc@yahoo.com> <86plhodtsw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20250407210248.00006457@yahoo.com> <868qoaeezc.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86mscqcpy1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86iknecjz8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <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 writes: > >> On 09/04/2025 00:27, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> bart 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.)