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