Non conformant code doesn't become an idiom, because it's broken. If you want to wrap that in a cultural framework, go ahead, but it rather misses the point. >

Non conformant code doesn't become an idiom, because it's broken. If you want to wrap that in a cultural framework, go ahead, but it rather misses the point. > I was arguing that such a solution is not unusual for C You may have asserted that (funny how people call their unsupported assertions "arguments"), but you're wrong if so. Again, it's broken, in C just as much as C++. You wrote > instead one would use hash functions for each type and in the case of a struct the individual members would be accessed to build the hash value. But this is just as much true in C as C++, because hashing pad bytes is wrong. In fact, C programmers are probably more aware of this than C++ programmers.