Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!deccrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: a "derived-declarator-type-list" isn't
Message-ID: <1990Oct12.015837.27488@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 12 Oct 90 01:58:37 GMT
References: <1990Oct8.000812.24800@zoo.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 19

In article <1990Oct8.000812.24800@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In several of the subsections of 3.5.4, the result of a particular form
>of declarator is defined in terms of the result of a simpler form, which
>is said to supply a type "derived-declarator-type-list T".
>There is just one problem with this.  Nothing ever defines what a d-d-t-l
>is.  Despite the name, it is not a list of derived declarator types,
>and indeed it is not a list of types at all.

Perhaps it is just a typo (perhaps a forgotten edit) for, simply,
"derived declarator type" which is defined in 3.1.2.5?

And if it isn't, then would someone please be kind enough to post the
correct definition?

-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC    diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
                                    (tkou02 is scheduled for demolition)
We steer like a sports car:  I use opinions; the company uses the rack.