Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Struct definition in MS-C Keywords: pointer, linked list, Microsoft C Message-ID: <1989Aug18.101819.3634@twwells.com> Date: 18 Aug 89 10:18:19 GMT References:<10761@smoke.BRL.MIL> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 35 In article <10761@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: : In article shuang@caip.rutgers.edu (Shuang Chen) writes: : >struct node { : > struct node *next; : > }; : >as it is with standard C, but this doesn't work with MS-C. Baloney. It works fine with Microsoft C. : Actually that should have worked with anybody's C. : Try something like : struct node; : struct node { : struct node *next; : }; Eh? The first example is perfectly good C. The only case I think it might fail is with something like: struct node { ... }; foo() { struct node { struct node *next; }; The "struct node *" is, I think, going to refer to the global struct node, not the local one; in that case, adding an additional "struct node;" at the start of the function will fix things. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com