🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43i723$j90@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>, volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher R. Volpe) writes
> ....
> Secondly, even if prototypes in general were necessary for correct code
> generation, and even if all struct pointers didn't "smell alike", it still
> doesn't explain why function-prototype scope is needed. Even if it were
> necessary that pointer-type parameters be pointers to complete types, it is
> still possible (in fact, it's pretty much mandatory if you want to actually
> *use* the function) to declare the complete structure type before the
> prototype.

No, the pointer-form is the problem.  Prototype-scope prevents the
parameter here
	int k(struct S *)
from being fullie declared.  Its type is not the type of anie of these,
if later declared:
	struct S
	{	char f;
	};
or
	struct S
	{	int f;
	};
or
	struct S
	{	double f;
	}
.  Hereby the problem of dealing with sundrie kinds of pointers, if
needed, is swept under the rug.

But I deem it wizer to ask the authors, if we can reach them.