Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Simple questions about array declarations
Message-ID: <12248@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 28 Feb 90 04:27:30 GMT
References: <25E833AA.15362@paris.ics.uci.edu> <12235@smoke.BRL.MIL> <16045@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <16045@haddock.ima.isc.com> karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
>...  3.7.2 says "if the declaration... is a tentative
>definition and has internal linkage, the declared type shall not be an
>incomplete type".  This seems to make array7 and array10 illegal.

Ok, I stand corrected.  I'd forgotten that we had agreed to that.
Tentative definitions were a real mess.

>It's also a pretty stupid rule, in my opinion.

I hope before everyone else in X3J11 forgets why the rules ended up
the way they did, somebody documents it.  The Rationale doesn't appear
to cover this.