> For the dirty corner of any language one is usually better off with > a written formal standard. Now, since Plan9 doesn't have such a > document, relying on a work done by c99 committee would seem like > a wise thing to do. > > And it is not like we are talking about C++ ISO standard here, the > C99 is actually quite beautiful (except may be a couple of places > like compound literals, and stuff). > > What's your problem with such an approach?
only the part where i abdicate my ability to think to a committee. i'm difficult that way. > > also, a pointer to an incomplete type is used > > in many places in plan 9 libraries. > > 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? - erik
