Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!caip!nike!cad!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Type checking for typedef's (new feature)
Message-ID: <14056@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 30-May-86 06:28:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.14056
Posted: Fri May 30 06:28:03 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 31-May-86 07:17:01 EDT
References: <361@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 17

In article <361@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu.arpa writes:
>What I would like is for typedef names to be considered by the compiler as 
>DIFFERENT from the underlying types. The compiler should then allow an
>implicit (or explicit) cast back and forth between the derived and under-
>lying types -- this will avoid breaking existing code. The improvement over
>the current state of things will happen when I ask the compiler "please tell
>me about possibly nasty implicit casts!"
> 
>Is it reasonable? Is it hard to implement? Comments?

   Yes.  No.  This is how almost all typed languages (except C) handle
their types, and I agree that it is vastly preferable.  But don't hold
your breath waiting for C programmers to give up their super-weak typing.

   -- David desJardins

P.S. If you want to flame me do so via mail; I don't read this group...