Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Non-Portable pointer assignment?
Message-ID: <16369@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 10 Jun 91 02:54:52 GMT
References: <1991Jun7.161752.9625@zoo.toronto.edu> <16359@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Jun9.224624.3859@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <1991Jun9.224624.3859@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
-In article <16359@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
->-It's worse than that.  Recently it was pointed out that a named enumeration
->-type is in scope as soon as its name is seen, and since there is no provision
->-for incomplete enumerated types, that means that `sizeof(enumtype)' is legal
->-before the members have been seen... so the size of the type cannot depend
->-on the values of the members!!  (In X3J11's defence, this probably was not
->-deliberate.)
->I'm not sure X3J11 would agree with the above interpretation.
-What part of it do you think they would disagree with?  I see no
-"interpretation" involved.

For one, the claim that "there is no provision for incomplete enumerated types".
It seems to me that the case in point provides a perfect counterexample.