Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclscu!shankar
From: shankar@hpclscu.cup.hp.com (Shankar Unni)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Re: the SUN way.. *&$^#%)
Message-ID: <77210009@hpclscu.cup.hp.com>
Date: 22 Jan 91 03:48:09 GMT
References: <3340@lupine.NCD.COM>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Calif. Language Lab
Lines: 20

Ron Guilmette writes:

> +P.S. regarding the "laxness" of ANSI C compilers: many such compilers,
> +recognizing the need for such a usage, are deliberately permissive
> +on a mismatch of function pointer arguments, if the mismatch is between
> +a "T *" and a "void *".
> 
> Oh, yea?!?!?!  Name two!  I dare you!  Who makes these sloppy implementations?

Sorry to duplicate my reply, but my notesposter does not allow me to
cross-post anything..

As I replied in comp.lang.c++, this was slightly sloppy wording on my
part. Of course, ANSI C implementations are required to "diagnose" such
mismatches. What's left up to the compiler is the severity of the messages
for such transgressions. That's where the "usability factor" comes in..
-----
Shankar Unni                                   E-Mail: 
Hewlett-Packard California Language Lab.     Internet: shankar@hpda.hp.com
Phone : (408) 447-5797                           UUCP: ...!hplabs!hpda!shankar