Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why have xxx_t typedef names
Message-ID: <15200@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 14 Feb 91 21:06:01 GMT
References: <1991Jan31.172147.21397@zoo.toronto.edu> <23134@netcom.COM> <3377@unisoft.UUCP>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 19

In article <3377@unisoft.UUCP> greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) writes:
>Is there/will there ever be a compile-time / cpp-time evaluation as to
>what types are defined?
>#if typed(stat_t)

No, because there ARE no types during preprocessing.

>There are many times I've wanted such a beast.

Lots of people would like it, too, but it would be a substantially
different language.  Keep this in mind when designing a new general-
purpose programming language.

>Also, do typedefs ever make it into an object's/executable's nlist?

Different object file formats have different support for this, but
note that a typedef does NOT define a new type, merely an identifier
that can be used to represent existing types.  Thus no "strong typing"
of such types is permitted, which limits its utility for debugging etc.