Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uupsi!grebyn!ckp
From: ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Forward referrence of static variables.
Message-ID: <24413@grebyn.com>
Date: 2 Jan 91 17:12:12 GMT
References: <1991Jan2.084213.19442@cai.uucp>
Reply-To: ckp@grebyn.UUCP (Checkpoint Technologies)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA
Lines: 34

In article <1991Jan2.084213.19442@cai.uucp> davel@cai.UUCP (David W. Lauderback) writes:
>I think there is no "clean" solution to the problem I have but I wanted to test
>my ability to post on the net so here is the problem:

In fact, I may have an appropriate solution.

>I have some structures that make up a doublely linked list that I wish to
>initialize.  The problem is I can't have two structures linked to each other.
> [example deleted]

Try this:

struct some_thing
   {
   struct some_thing *next, *prev;
   /* ... other members */
   };

struct some_thing things[] = {
   { &things[1], NULL, },
   { &things[2], &things[0], },
   { &things[3], &things[1], },

...and so on.  You get the idea.  This won't work if you have different
structure types to resolve this way; or else you could make a union of
them, though only ANSI specifies union initialization I understand.

You could make #defines for the individual array members if you want to
avoid referring to them as things[n].
-- 
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T  T E C H N O L O G I E S      / /  
                                                                    \\ / /    
Then, the disclaimer:  All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \  / o
Now for the witty part:    I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam!             \/