Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil
From: phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: questionnaire
Message-ID: <6200008@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 90 10:38:16 GMT
References: <22039@<1990Jan12>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:<1990Jan12:22039:ux1.cso.uiuc.edu:6200008:000:705
Nf-From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil    Jan 17 00:57:00 1990


> This method automatically takes care of this:
> 
> 	struct FOO2;
> 
> 	typedef struct FOO {
> 		struct FOO	*next, *previous;
> 		...
> 		struct FOO2	*buddy;
> 	}	FOO;
> 
> 	typedef struct FOO2 {
> 		struct FOO2	*next, *previous;
> 		...
> 		struct FOO	*buddy;
> 	}	FOO2;

Is the first "struct FOO2" really necessary?  What is the scope of the
definition of struct FOO2 inside the first typdef?  If the scope of the
definition is limited as such, and the second typedef again defines FOO2
(for the first time in the wider scope) do these two distinct definitions
actuall rendevous in some way as to have them deal with each other as
being the same thing?

--Phil Howard, KA9WGN--
<phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>