Why are typedef names in the same name space as variable names?

[Donald L. Nash]

Why are typedef names in the same name space as variable names? In C
this presents very few problems, but in C++ it causes problems. Since
class names are implicitly made into typedef names, they are also in the
same name space as variable names. This means that you cannot have
something like:

struct foo { /* ... */ };

int foo;

in C++.

I know it is really too late to change anything, but I'm still curious why C
was made this way. Speak up, BWK and DMR!!! :-) Flames to /dev/null, please.

Don Nash

UUCP: ...!{ihnp4, allegra, seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!dlnash
ARPA: dln...@ngp.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
BITNET: CCEU001@UTADNX, DLNASH@UTADNX

Two wonderful facts to lighten your day:
1. The world is basically non-linear.
2. The entropy of the universe is increasing.

[Brian Russ]

In article <42...@ut-ngp.UUCP> dln...@ut-ngp.UUCP (Donald L. Nash) writes:
>Why are typedef names in the same name space as variable names? ...
> ... This means that you cannot have

>something like:
>
> struct foo { /* ... */ };
>
> int foo;
>
>in C++.
>

If they weren't in the same name space, you could, in addition
to the above, write:

struct foo { /* ... */ };

foo foo;

Yuch! Do you really want/need this flexibility? In my opinion,
it's better the way it is now.

[BEATTIE]

> Why are typedef names in the same name space as variable names? In C
> this presents very few problems, but in C++ it causes problems. Since
> class names are implicitly made into typedef names, they are also in the
> same name space as variable names. This means that you cannot have
> something like:
>
> struct foo { /* ... */ };
>
> int foo;
>
> in C++.

> Don Nash

To avoid things like:
foo foo;
Tom.