Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!labrea!aurora!amelia!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: While talking about useful additions, how about this one??
Message-ID: <7237@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 11 Feb 88 00:58:49 GMT
References: <253@vsi1.UUCP> <127@ghostwheel.UUCP> <7169@brl-smoke.ARPA> <131@ghostwheel.UUCP> <2528@haddock.ISC.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <2528@haddock.ISC.COM> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>How about writing "struct generic *", where "struct generic" is never defined?
>This is already syntactically and semantically legal.

Is that really true?  I think technically you're supposed to have to
have pre-declared the incomplete type:
	struct generic;
and that if the type is not later completed it's supposed to be an error.