Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!spdcc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Handling of untagged structures by the C compiler
Keywords: structures, equivalence, tagged, typecast
Message-ID: <18104@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 22 Sep 90 00:33:32 GMT
References: <879@gtenmc.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@kelp.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Distribution: na
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302
Lines: 14

In article <879@gtenmc.UUCP> ravim@gtenmc.UUCP (Ravi Kumar Mandava) writes:
>	#define ST struct { int i; }
>[lost of stuff refering to `ST *']
>Why can't the compilers be made more intelligent so as to recognize the
>equivalence of structure types with the same definitions...?

I have a struct complex, which consists of two numbers, and a struct vec2d,
which consists of two numbers.  They are logically distinct types, and I want
the compiler to complain if I mix them.  Your proposal would prevent this.

A better idea is to educate the user to quit doing that nonsense.  There's no
good reason for that symbol to be a macro instead of a typedef.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@kelp.ima.isc.com or ima!kelp!karl), The Walking Lint