Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!ico!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A dilemma with handles
Message-ID: <18390@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 3 Oct 90 03:50:21 GMT
References: <markd.654876849@sunchat> <3877@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302
Lines: 14

In article <3877@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <markd.654876849@sunchat>, markd@iti.org (Mark Delany) writes:
>> Now my question relates to the definition of "handle".  Within the
>> library this is simply a pointer to a structure that holds all the
>> goodies necessary to achieve the results.
>
>[Use an incomplete struct type]

I agree.  If you use `void *', the compiler will probably silently allow them
to be assigned to/from arbitrary pointer types; you're making it a lot easier
for the user to make certain kinds of mistakes.  With an incomplete type, the
user gets the full benefit of type-checking.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@kelp.ima.isc.com or ima!kelp!karl), The Walking Lint