Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att-cb!att-ih!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1
From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: typedef laxity
Message-ID: <4399@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Date: 12 Apr 88 22:07:42 GMT
References: <1070@maynard.BSW.COM> <542@picuxa.UUCP> <1071@maynard.BSW.COM>
Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 24

In article <1071@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes:

>Can anyone convince me that
>it shouldn't?  (For example, show me a code fragment where it is both
>reasonable and readable to mix type names as in the above example.)

Here is one that I see a lot among beginning C programmers:

	typedef	char *	string;

If I have the following declaration:

	string	foo;

I really don't want

	foo = "bar";

to be an error or even a warning from lint.
-- 
 _ __			NEVIN J. LIBER	..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1	(312) 510-6194
' )  )				"The secret compartment of my ring I fill
 /  / _ , __o  ____		 with an Underdog super-energy pill."
/  (_</_\/ <__/ / <_	These are solely MY opinions, not AT&T's, blah blah blah