On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 15:29 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > > The above paragraph has nothing to do with pointers to incomplete types > > (except for a clarification). Why are you bringing this up? > > assuming that pointers to incomplete types are > themselves incomplete, and you haven't cited > chapter and verse showing they are, i read that paragraph > as saying that what plan 9 libraries do would be > illegal, and therefore if we follow the standard, > we'd need to remove Incomplete*s and replace > them with void*s. > > if i'm wrong, can you explain how?
The pointer to the incomplete type is a "pointer type", not an incomplete type. It is part of the section describing tye type system of C99 (section 6.2.5). Look for "derived types". Thanks, Roman.
