🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <811842552snz@soliton.demon.co.uk>, Ian Cargill <ian@soliton.demon.co.uk> writes
> No, it isn't even a headache.  It certainly wasn't an 'experiment', either.
> It was a deliberate choice made for well-considered reasons.  You may be 
> one of those 'poor programer' who has trouble.  Personally I have no 
> difficulty with it at all.
It _was_ an experiment: such behavior is peculiar to C.  Where els is
it permitted to refer to pointer to not known type in a function-type
declaration (I _hate_ "prototype"; ugh!)?  That it is permitted is
a good thing, but not making a special case of it is a token that the
writers waffld, and it would be honester to forbid it.

> If you are having problems, I suggest it is because you are trying 
> to subvert the standard, rather than use it.  Don't complain that 
> the push-bike is badly designed because you can't pedal it with 
> your hands!
No, it is a bicycle with a crank but no pedals or holes: it is up to the
owner to drill and tap the crank and by and install pedals.

> If you _genuinely_ believe there is a problem, post an example.  I'll 
> guarantee to be able to supply a simple and easy solution.
Your solution is to write "struct S" ere the first declaration,
and that is the problem.