Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ukma!nrl-cmf!ames!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!lzaz!lznv!psc
From: psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Problems with MSC 5.0
Message-ID: <1203@lznv.ATT.COM>
Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 13:29:39 EST
Article-I.D.: lznv.1203
Posted: Tue Nov 24 13:29:39 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Nov-87 10:43:31 EST
References: <754@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> <1610047@hpcvlo.HP.COM>
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 22
Summary: never should have worked

<PS/2: yesterday's hardware today; OS/2: yesterday's software tomorrow>

In article <1610047@hpcvlo.HP.COM>, jason@hpcvlo.HP.COM (Jason Su) writes:
> /* Here's another irritating bug that compiled(!) w/o errors on MSC 4.0. */
> typedef int map;
> 
> typedef struct {
> 	int *map;		/* <-- This is the error line */	
> } my_struct;		

K&R, p. 200:  "Declarations whose 'storage class' is typedef do not
define storage, but instead DEFINE IDENTIFIERS WHICH CAN BE USED LATER
AS IF THEY WERE TYPE KEYWORDS . . ."  [emphasis mine]

The identifier "map" is effectively a reserved keyword from the time
its typedef is complete through the end of the compiled module.  MSC
4.0 was incorrect in accepting this code in the first place.  I suspect
that most C compilers that support typedef will reject it.

-Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc
AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com
I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind.