Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!greg
From: greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why are typedef names in the same name space as variable names?
Message-ID: <3723@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Dec-86 18:13:48 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.3723
Posted: Wed Dec  3 18:13:48 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Dec-86 18:45:27 EST
References: <1092@spice.cs.cmu.edu> <307@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith)
Distribution: net
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <4743@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
>>Declarations inside blocks must specify a type or a storage class.  I
>>am not saying that this is perfectly consistent; however it is
>>thoroughly documented.
>
>Where is this documented?  K&R say that the type may be left out of
>declarations ( giving "int" as the default ).  And they mention a
>problem explicitly with typedefs.  I don't see anywhere that says I
>must specify a type in other cases ( on the other hand, I haven't looked
>very hard.  I may have missed it. ).

Well, I take this back. Can't find it in K&R anywhere. It should
be mentioned on page 201 in 9.2, especially. It *has* to be a rule,
since there are umpteem valid declarations that become valid statements
when you don't give a storage class or type:
	int i=1;
	extern foo();
etc.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith     University of Toronto      UUCP: ..utzoo!utcsri!greg
Have vAX, will hack...