Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!uunet!mcrware!jejones
From: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: incomplete types for objects with linkage--prior art?
Keywords: 3.5, p.58, lines 30-31
Message-ID: <5024@mcrware.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 91 23:52:55 GMT
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Ia.
Lines: 13

A posting a while back indicated that the following is strictly-conforming:

	struct woof		arf;
	struct woof {
		int		i, j, k;
	};

It conforms because the semantics in 3.5 only refer to identifiers with no
linkage when constraining the type to be complete by the end of the declarator.

I'm curious--is there prior art for this interpretation?

	James Jones