Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Non-Portable pointer assignment?
Message-ID: <1991Jun10.171649.9433@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 17:16:49 GMT
References: <1991Jun7.161752.9625@zoo.toronto.edu> <16359@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Jun9.224624.3859@zoo.toronto.edu> <16369@smoke.brl.mil>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <16369@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>...the claim that "there is no provision for incomplete enumerated types".
>It seems to me that the case in point provides a perfect counterexample.

You're confusing need with provision.  The case in point provides an
example of a *need* for incomplete enumerated types.  However, the standard
does not provide such a feature.  Indeed, wording in at least one place
(I'm at Usenix and don't have my copy handy) indicates clearly that X3J11
specifically thought that there was no such thing.
-- 
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry