Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #168590
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: typedef in old C |
| Date | 2022-12-18 17:25 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86sfhc18wq.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <tn9vlg$5ra$1@gioia.aioe.org> <874jtz2r5s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> I was looking at the 1983 C sources of PostScript (via >> https://computerhistory.org/blog/postscript-a-digital-printing-press/). >> >> It uses typedef like this: >> >> typedef long int integer; >> typedef unsigned integer Offset; >> >> That is, being able to apply 'unsigned' to a typedef-ed name, rather >> than any of 'char short int long'. >> >> I guess this is not legal C now; I just wondered at what point it >> stopped being legal, if it ever was (perhaps compilers were just more >> lax). > > I doubt it has ever been legal. Even K&R1 has the wording that rules it > out. Pre-K&R1 C might have been more lax, but for most of the time > before K&R1 C did not even have unsigned! > > I wonder what else this generous compiler permitted. Could one do > > typedef double number; > typedef long number hi_prec_num; > > for example? I doubt it. Most likely the issue is not the compiler but the code. This body of code has all sorts of problems, including syntax errors and some things that are obviously wrong or incomplete. If you try compiling it I think you'll see what I mean. Incidentally, there are pretty clear signs of a Mesa influence, which isn't surprising since the principals came from Xerox PARC.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
typedef in old C Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-12-13 13:45 +0000
Re: typedef in old C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 06:42 -0800
Re: typedef in old C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 06:46 -0800
Re: typedef in old C Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-12-13 15:56 +0000
Re: typedef in old C Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2022-12-13 18:07 +0000
Re: typedef in old C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 11:11 -0800
Re: typedef in old C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 16:40 +0000
Re: typedef in old C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-13 17:05 +0000
Re: typedef in old C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 10:27 -0800
Re: typedef in old C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-18 17:25 -0800
Re: typedef in old C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 10:30 -0800
Re: typedef in old C luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 09:42 -0800
Re: typedef in old C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 20:59 +0000
Re: typedef in old C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 13:44 -0800
Re: typedef in old C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-15 02:46 +0000
Re: typedef in old C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-15 15:01 +0000
Re: typedef in old C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-15 17:07 +0000
Re: typedef in old C luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:34 -0800
Re: typedef in old C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-16 17:41 +0000
Re: typedef in old C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 07:54 +0100
csiph-web