Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!rutgers!ucsd!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg
From: rhg@cpsolv.UUCP (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: typedef names in parameter lists
Summary: obsolete drafts considered harmful
Message-ID: <449@cpsolv.UUCP>
Date: 17 Nov 89 02:18:59 GMT
References: <24050@cup.portal.com> <11603@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: rhg@cpsolv.uucp (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas
Lines: 22

In article <11603@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>Check out 3.5.6, Examples, which explains how to apply the notion of
>typedefs in such a declaration context.

This text that Doug cites was added sometime between January 1988 and
December 1988.  If you missed it, it is probably because you have an old
draft.  I only got around to getting an up-to-date copy last week (sigh). 

The high cost of the drafts has really hurt -- many people tend to work
from obsolete documents. 

I think DARPA did quite well by making the Internet standards (RFCs)
available for "free" (i.e.  subsidized indirectly as art of operating
the Internet and the NIC) so that nobody would have any excuse for
working from obsolete documents.  Too bad ANSI can't find a better
source of funds and so has to keep such tight control over its
documents. 
-- 
===============================================================================
| Richard H. Gumpertz rhg%cpsolv@uunet.uu.NET -or- ...uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg |
| Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749      |
===============================================================================