Namespace for typedefs

[Wm E. Davidsen Jr]

In article <38 at asterix.stanford.edu> kon at asterix.Stanford.EDU (Ronnie Kon) writes:

| 	My questions then, are
| 		1)  Do people agree that this is the explanation for the fact
| 		that my compilers (I have tried this on a number of different
| 		machines) accept the first fragment but reject the second?

  Without a copy of the standard home I can't be sure if you're right.
It certainly looks as if the behavior violates the "law of least
astonishment" rule, if nothing else.
| 
| 		2)  Do other people believe that this should be changed?

  I think think it's urgent. When the next standard committee is
meeting, I would agree that this would be a good place for enhancement.
Having a typedefname behave like a type in all cases would probably be
the best way to have it work. I suppose that it will break some
"tricky" program or other.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen at sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc
"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon