Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26748 comp.lang.misc:4390
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!sunic!enea!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: C strongly typed?
Message-ID: <862@enea.se>
Date: 10 Mar 90 00:06:59 GMT
References: <259@eiffel.UUCP) <1990Mar1.172526.28683@utzoo.uucp) <849@enea.se) <1990Mar7.182230.5517@utzoo.uucp)
Organization: Enea Data AB, Sweden
Lines: 21

Henry Spencer (henry@utzoo.uucp) writes:
)No, because the somewhat-misnamed "typedef" explicitly declares a synonym,
)not a new type.  However, if you write something like:
)
)	char *p;
)	int a;
)	...
)	a = p;
)
)any modern compiler will object.  C's type system is not extensible unless
)you count "struct", but the language is strongly typed -- mixing random
)types is not allowed.

Well, apparently I am allowed to mix apples and oranges. If I have
two types of data that both happens to be represented by integers,
but have no logical connection what so ever I cannot apparently 
express that in C. And consequently I cannot take help from the
compiler to catch inadvertent mixups in for instance procedure calls.

-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se