Re: [9fans] C compiler question

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>]

> For the dirty corner of any language one is usually better off with
> a written formal standard. Now, since Plan9 doesn't have such a
> document, relying on a work done by c99 committee would seem like
> a wise thing to do.
>
> And it is not like we are talking about C++ ISO standard here, the
> C99 is actually quite beautiful (except may be a couple of places
> like compound literals, and stuff).
>
> What's your problem with such an approach?

only the part where i abdicate my ability to think to
a committee.  i'm difficult that way.

> > also, a pointer to an incomplete type is used
> > in many places in plan 9 libraries.
>
> The above paragraph has nothing to do with pointers to incomplete types
> (except for a clarification). Why are you bringing this up?

assuming that pointers to incomplete types are
themselves incomplete, and you haven't cited
chapter and verse showing they are, i read that paragraph
as saying that what plan 9 libraries do would be
illegal, and therefore if we follow the standard,
we'd need to remove Incomplete*s and replace
them with void*s.

if i'm wrong, can you explain how?

- erik