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?