From 3492327789699692361 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,27b216646bf2abb1 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-03-21 00:38:57 PST Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Conversions to/from void*, redux Keywords: Sun, C++ Message-ID: <27E765DF.12BD@tct.uucp> Date: 20 Mar 91 13:38:38 GMT References: <71206@microsoft.UUCP> <27E01E50.64DF@tct.uucp> <71386@microsoft.UUCP> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 27 According to jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK): >In article <27E01E50.64DF@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >| >| f1.c: >| main() { blah("howdy"); } >| >| f2.c: >| #include >| blah(void *p) { puts(p); } > >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 ... Wrong on both points. Declare blah() as 'extern "C"' in both modules, and this example will link (and run) just fine. Or do you wish to wave a magic wand and make 'extern "C"' go away, too? >Thus I reiterate my statements that the C++ committee ought to stay >focused on specifying *language* not *implementation.* Fine, as long as you always emphasize that word "ought," and don't criticize people for using the language as it is specified. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "All this is conjecture of course, since I *only* post in the nude. Nothing comes between me and my t.b. Nothing." -- Bill Coderre