Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:3456 comp.lang.c:18994
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!agate!shelby!csli!jkl
From: jkl@csli.Stanford.EDU (John Kallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: Why 'struct foo *x' instead of 'foo *x'
Message-ID: <9137@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 27 May 89 05:57:39 GMT
References: <26575@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10213@claris.com>
Sender: jkl@csli.Stanford.EDU (John Kallen)
Reply-To: jkl@csli.stanford.edu (John Kallen)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 14

In article <10213@claris.com> kevin@claris.com (Kevin Watts) writes:
>I've never liked the typedef nonsense.  C++'s approach is, IMHO, the way
>C should have behaved from the beginning.  Since I've never yet had to
>convert any C code to C++, I've had no problems with compatability.

Does anybody know the reason why structs are defined as they are in C?
I.e. why do I have to say "struct foo" instead of just the tag "foo"?

John.
_______________________________________________________________________________
 | |   |   |    |\ | |   /|\ | John Kallen            
 | |\ \|/ \|  * |/ | |/|  |  | PoBox 11215             "Life. Don't talk to me 
 | |\ /|\  |\ * |\ |   |  |  | Stanford CA 94309        about life."         
_|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________