Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site desint.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!wlbr!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: typedef gripe
Message-ID: <142@desint.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Oct-84 16:29:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: desint.142
Posted: Sat Oct  6 16:29:47 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Oct-84 19:59:28 EDT
References: <22286ae4.8e4@apollo.uucp>
Organization: his home computer, Thousand Oaks, CA
Lines: 18

>What's the correct answer?  I don't know.  Probably the best thing to do
>is avoid typedef'ing arrays completely.
>				Kee Hinckley

Amen!  Note that if the guy who typedef'ed jmp_buf had made it a struct, not
only would it have been more flexible, but the construct under discussion
("jmp_buf c, *cp;  cp = &c;") would have been perfectly legal.  Now, of
course, there are thousands of people out there who have been forced to write
code that assumes jmp_buf is an array, so fixing the typedef to be a struct
like it should have in the first place will break all that code.  *SIGH*.

(I was never too happy with the idea of typedef'ing something as a fixed-size
array, anyway.  Doesn't sit well with my hick notions of what a typedef out to
be.)
-- 
	Geoff Kuenning
	First Systems Corporation
	...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff