Daniel.Edelson@inria.fr (Daniel R. Edelson) writes:

>Is "char char c;" a legal declaration?

>Is there language in the draft standard
>that prohibits "char int c;"?

ARM section 7.1.6, p 108:

"[except for adding const and/or volatile], at most one
type-specifier may be given in a declaration."
--

Steve Clamage, TauMetric Corp, steve@taumet.com
Vice Chair, ANSI C++ Committee, X3J16

In article <4054@seti.UUCP>, Daniel.Edelson@inria.fr (Daniel R. Edelson) writes:
> Is "char char c;" a legal declaration?
>
> Is there language in the draft standard
> that prohibits "char int c;"?

See 7.1.8 of the ARM, which states that with the exception of `long' and
`int', at most one _type-specifier_ may be present in a declaration.

I see no reason why x3j16/WG 22 would drop this requirement.  Whether it
will be rephrased, of course, is another question.
--
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end    Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

In article <1992Aug8.154018.20331@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
|> In article <4054@seti.UUCP>, Daniel.Edelson@inria.fr (Daniel R. Edelson) writes:
|> > Is "char char c;" a legal declaration?
|> >
|> > Is there language in the draft standard
|> > that prohibits "char int c;"?
|>
|> See 7.1.8 of the ARM, which states that with the exception of `long' and
|> `int', at most one _type-specifier_ may be present in a declaration.
|>
|> I see no reason why x3j16/WG 22 would drop this requirement.  Whether it
|> will be rephrased, of course, is another question.

Previous empty message was result of incorrect button selection.

What I meant to say is 7.1.6/3 (there is no 7.1.8) contradicts
7.1.6/1 beacuse it allows "long int".

  -- Jerry

jss@lucid.com (Jerry Schwarz) writes:

>In article <1992Aug8.154018.20331@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
>|> In article <4054@seti.UUCP>, Daniel.Edelson@inria.fr (Daniel R. Edelson) writes:
>|> > Is "char char c;" a legal declaration?
>|> >
>|> > Is there language in the draft standard
>|> > that prohibits "char int c;"?
>|>
>|> See 7.1.8 of the ARM, which states that with the exception of `long' and
>|> `int', at most one _type-specifier_ may be present in a declaration.
>|>
>|> I see no reason why x3j16/WG 22 would drop this requirement.  Whether it
>|> will be rephrased, of course, is another question.

>Previous empty message was result of incorrect button selection.

>What I meant to say is 7.1.6/3 (there is no 7.1.8) contradicts
>7.1.6/1 beacuse it allows "long int".

Please correct me if I'm wrong :)

but isn't "long" just a type modifier?  which defaults to type int if
nothing else is given? (as does virtually everything else)

so "long" really means "long int" anyway,
and what about "long double"?
--
Paul Wagland            | These opinions are mine and no-one elses
gupw@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   | Bingy Bingy Bingy Frogs Go round and round
------------------------+     -- Another silly quote from me  :-)

Is "char char c;" a legal declaration?

Is there language in the draft standard
that prohibits "char int c;"?

Thanks,
daniel