Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why have xxx_t typedef names (was Re: Is typedef char BUFFER[20] legal?)
Message-ID: <15132@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 8 Feb 91 20:35:18 GMT
References: <BEVAN.91Jan30084205@rhino.cs.man.ac.uk> <1991Jan31.172147.21397@zoo.toronto.edu> <23134@netcom.COM>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <23134@netcom.COM> avery@netcom.COM (Avery Colter) writes:
>It might be, since these seem to be so widespread, that the standards
>committee might have sanctioned certain of these xxx_t types as being
>standard parameter or return types of some of the standard library
>functions.

Yes, the C standard does that.  However, the types are associated
with relevant standard headers rather than a separate <sys/types.h>.