Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!pardo
From: pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: scope of actual parameters
Message-ID: <8938@june.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 7 Aug 89 15:04:19 GMT
References: <8936@june.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: pardo@uw-june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 30

This is a summary of responses.

pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes:
| My *impression* is that actual parameter names are local to the
| function.  My dpANS-compliant compiler (gcc version 1.34) complains on
| the following program:
|
|     typedef int foo;
|     m (foo){}
|
|     foo.c: parameter name omitted

The most illuminating comment was Roger Critchlow:

| It's compliant.  There is an ambiguity in the grammar at the point
| where m (foo has been read.  The compiler wants to know whether it
| has read the first identifier in an old style function declaration
| or the type-name of the first parameter in a prototype style function
| declarator.  Rather than forcing the compiler to look ahead further
| to disambiguate, the standard says that a type-name is a type-name
| in this context.

Thanks to all who responeded (and those who have yet to respond :-)
Fooey on inews for rejecting my article the first time, just because
I was trying to show what was quoted text.

	;-D on  ( The great plains: Farm all parameters )  Pardo
-- 
		    pardo@cs.washington.edu
    {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo