Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdchema.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdchema!jwp From: jwp@sdchema.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: forward declared structures Message-ID: <210@sdchema.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Aug-84 11:09:36 EDT Article-I.D.: sdchema.210 Posted: Sat Aug 4 11:09:36 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Aug-84 08:13:50 EDT References: <226@siemens.UUCP> <884@bbncca.ARPA> <2263@saturn.UUCP> Reply-To: jwp@sdchema.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego Lines: 17 In article <2263@saturn.UUCP> miller@saturn.UUCP (Terrence C. Miller) writes: >K&R may say that the short form of the declaration may be only used >for subsequent occurrances of the tag but those of us who write code >which looks like: > > struct a { struct b *pb; > .... > }; > > struct b { struct a *pa; > .... > }; > >would be very upset if the compiler enforced that restriction. *Lots* of things would be upset if that wasn't legal code. I guess the question now is: What is the new standard going to say about this?