Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!amdahl!netcom!avery
From: avery@netcom.COM (Avery Colter)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: typedefing functions (Re: Is typedef char BUFFER[20] legal?)
Message-ID: <23129@netcom.COM>
Date: 7 Feb 91 19:09:44 GMT
References: <1212@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> <1991Jan29.210100.8105@zoo.toronto.edu> <22642@netcom.UUCP> <1991Feb3.000128.15980@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Feb4.053613.3758@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 23

datangua@watmath.waterloo.edu (David Tanguay) writes:

>Our compiler had a neat bug with this. It would accept, e.g., 

>	typedef int f( int a ) { return a+1; }

Hmmmmm......

Ya meeeeeeeeen.......

I could just see this:

f foo;

foo is a function with an int parameter returning an int,
AND has the statement body {return a+1;}!

Probably not legal, but hey, I've been wrong before this week. :P

-- 
Avery Ray Colter    {apple|claris}!netcom!avery  {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat
(415) 839-4567   "I feel love has got to come on and I want it:
                  Something big and lovely!"         - The B-52s, "Channel Z"