PCC <-> scope rules for "typedef" ??

[Gordon A. Moffett]

> The following small C program (complete with error messages inserted by
> "error") illustrates that "typedef" does not obey the scope rules for
> declarations in the portable C compiler.  K&R says (in paragragh 11.1,
> page 206) that "typedef names are in the same class as ordinary identifiers.",
> and proceeds to give an example very much like that given below.
> Since re-declaring a typedef names fails in PCC, it can't occur in any programs
> compiled with PCC.  Are there any widely used C compilers which permit
> redeclaration of a typedef name?  Should new, "standard" C compilers implement
> this feature?
> 
> typedef int intType ;
> 
> x(i)
>   intType i ;
> /*###5 [cc] illegal type combination%%%*/
> { char intType ; /* <<<< Can't re-declare 'intType' in a new scope */
>   int(j) ;	/* looks strange, but means the same as "int j ;" */
> /*###7 [cc] syntax error%%%*/
> /*###7 [cc] warning: old-fashioned initialization: use =%%%*/
>   long(intType) ; /* <<<< "extra" parens cause a different problem */
> 
>   ; 
> }

We seek to follow as closely to K&R as possible in our C compiler.
We noticed this problem in PCC but implimented typedef as specified in
K&R anyway. (Our criteria for compiler accuracy is what K&R says, and
not "But it works on a Vax!").
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam

37 22'50" N / 122 59'12" W	[ This is just me talking. ]