From 635259232310849388
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,27b216646bf2abb1
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-03-19 04:53:15 PST
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux
Keywords: Sun, C++
Message-ID: <71386@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 19 Mar 91 01:23:45 GMT
References: <71031@microsoft.UUCP> <27D5708A.29CF@tct.uucp> <71206@microsoft.UUCP> <27E01E50.64DF@tct.uucp>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 24

In article <27E01E50.64DF@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
|   f1.c:
|
|      main()
|      {
|          blah("howdy");
|      }
|
|   f2.c:
|
|      #include <stdio.h>
|      blah(void *p)
|      {
|          puts(p);
|      }
|
|See?  It *is* a language issue, after all.

If this *is* a language issue -- then it points out that the issue
of whether or not char* and void* has the "same representation" or not 
is moot -- because in C++ this example would fail to link -- even on
implementations wherea char* and void* have the same representation.
Thus I reiterate my statements that the C++ committee ought to stay
focused on specifying *language* not *implementation.*