Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!tmiuv0!rick
From: rick@tmi.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re:  Is this valid C?
Message-ID: <4865@tmi.com>
Date: 20 May 91 11:43:10 GMT
References: <1991May5.222328.16225@csis.dit.csiro.au> <616@lysator.liu.se> <38542@ditka.Chicago.COM> <dillon.7597@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
Organization: Technology Marketing Inc., Irvine, CA
Lines: 36

In article <dillon.7597@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>, dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:
>     That is, assuming 'p' is initialized to something valid :-)
> 
>     struct foop *p;
>     struct foop { int a; char *b };
>     struct foop xx;
> 
>     main()
>     {
> 	p = &xx;
> 	p->a = 39; ...
>     }
> 

And generally, it's nicer to declare the struct before declaring a pointer
to it.  The compiler doesn't care which goes first usually, but it's nicer
for the programmer to see:

    struct foop { int a; char *b };
    struct foop *p;
    struct foop xx;

Also, although your compiler may not care, you need a semicolon after the
declaration of the second member of struct foop:

    struct foop { int a; char *b; };
                                ^
-- 
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|[- O] Rick Stevens                                                        |
|  ?   EMail: uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick -or- uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop     |
|  V                (rick@tmi.com)              (sysop@ssssc.com)          |
|      CIS: 75006,1355 (75006.1355@compuserve.com from Internet)           |
|                                                                          |
|           "If it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid!"                |
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'