🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43mnv1$nkg@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>, volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher R. Volpe) writes
> Could you be more specific? Which of my above statements do you disagree with
> and why?
Why function-prototype scope is needed: the pointer-problem is enough
for to explain it.

=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;
=	}
> I know that. That's the problem.
I know not what you mean, but I see a problem in seeing hou to generate
code for a pointer ere that which the pointer points to is known.

> How so? It's impossible to use the declared function now, so how are any
> problems "swept under the rug" as a result of having prototype scope? I stand
> by my claim that it is still possible and mandatory to declare the complete
> structure type before the prototype.
Well, yes, not declaring it raizes a problem, with a "solution" that forbids
use of the so declared function.

But if this declaration is just as forbiddind of use,
	int k(struct U
		{	int j;
		} *);
I too wunder what the standard-writers were up to.