🚀 go-pugleaf

> MODULE t03;
>    TYPE c = RECORD a, b: INTEGER END;
>    PROCEDURE e;
>       TYPE b = POINTER TO c;
>          c = ARRAY 3 OF CHAR;
>       VAR p: b;
>    BEGIN (* e *)
>       p^[1] := "x";
>    END e;
> END t03.

S. Bevan writes
> I'd call that more than an ambiguity.  My _interpretation_ of the
> rules (and the one I implemented) was that the above program was
> invalid, but that if you switched the order of "b" and "c" it would be
> valid.  Is the above (jt) interpretation going to be made official at
> some point? 

IMHO, our interpretations are exactly the same.
It is the interpretation that evolves naturally from "single pass compilation".
Unfortunately, the current report allows a different interpretation
because it does not restrict the forward declaration rule to
forward declarations. In this sense, the report is ambigous.
It does not specify which c is to be taken as the pointer base type.
If you switch b and c, there is no ambiguity even in the current report.

- Josef Templ
the usual disclaimer applies