Non-Portable pointer assignment?

[Henry Spencer]

In article <16359 at smoke.brl.mil> gwyn at smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>-It's worse than that.  Recently it was pointed out that a named enumeration
>-type is in scope as soon as its name is seen, and since there is no provision
>-for incomplete enumerated types, that means that `sizeof(enumtype)' is legal
>-before the members have been seen... so the size of the type cannot depend
>-on the values of the members!!  (In X3J11's defence, this probably was not
>-deliberate.)
>
>I'm not sure X3J11 would agree with the above interpretation.

What part of it do you think they would disagree with?  I see no
"interpretation" involved.
-- 
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  henry at zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry