Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ANSI C questions (parameters, structure assignment)
Message-ID: <3664@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 3 Sep 90 01:58:49 GMT
References: <1081.26d26274@desire.wright.edu> <352@saxony.pa.reuter.COM> <365@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 18

In article <365@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>, dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) writes:
> Well, I don't consider the feature, or its implementation, well understood.
> (And since you failed to grasp the differences between CORRESPONDING and the
> semantics that "demon" turned out to actually have in mind, 

Let's see "demon"'s own words, shall we?

demon>	It was intended that the assignement/operator would only be
demon>	performed on like structure elements, and only on elements
demon>	defined for the operater(s).

What exactly is the difference between this and CORRESPONDING that I have
failed to grasp?

(Explicitly defining "+" for the data type in question, using C++,
is undoubtedly a better approach.)
-- 
You can lie with statistics ... but not to a statistician.