At 20:57 10.10.02 -0400, Levi Bard wrote:
>> > Sorry for the incovenience. The M$ compiler docs claim this construct to
>> > be correct (there is no warning at all for the redefinition and at least
>> > for C++ this is standard conform :) See :
>> >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vclang98/ht
>> > ml/_pluslang_redeclaration_of_typedef_names.asp
>>
>> For ANSI C, declarator identifiers have to be unique (see K&R 2.ed p216 and
>> 219). So it's a no-no.
>
>
>Incidentally, why are we referring to the Microsoft compiler docs as
evidence of the standard?
>
I'm not sure why _you_ are referring to th M$ compiler but I was
referring to it because it simply was the compiler causing
the inconvenience.
And I was not referring to it as the (or even a) standard. The only
standard I was referring to was the C++ one which definitely isn't
from Micro$oft but isn't simply linkable either, cause you have to
pay to read it.
In case you haven't noticed yet, most work for Dia on win32 is done
with the M$ compiler ...
Regards,
Hans
-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org -----------
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along without it. -- Dilbert
_______________________________________________
Dia-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
FAQ at http://www.lysator.liu.se/~alla/dia/faq.html
Main page at http://www.lysator.liu.se/~alla/dia
