Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: typedef in old C
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 10:30:54 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <877cyvtau9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <tn9vlg$5ra$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3ff48156ba03619b1b817f52b89d4424"; logging-data="2710224"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mQeWKXCjlBGa+beOxa8qO"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8j7zopGzmthMfjd3TJnq13ZiO/s= sha1:kLvmYDZcAQ+FiVgXKmKRoVEs4OY=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:168539

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).

Apparently it was never documented as legal.  A compiler that accepted
it presumably had a bug (or perhaps an extension).  (1983 was 5 years
after K&R1, which apparently made it clear that it's invalid.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */