On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:40:39 -0500, Eric Sosman
<esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrote:
Quote:
>Richard Harter wrote:
Quote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:43:49 -0500, Eric Sosman
><Eric.Sosman@sun.comwrote:
Quote:
>>>[...]
>> But the "unrestricted access" issue is easily dealt with, in
>>the sense that the contents can be made "opaque." The tradition-
>>honored technique in C is for your "bobble.h" to omit any mention
>>of the elements of a struct bobble_s. You can declare a function
>>as accepting a struct bobble_s* as an argument or returning one
>>as a result without revealing what a struct bobble_s looks like,
>>or even revealing its size. See "incomplete type."
>>
>As it happens, I am quite familiar with the concept and the
>technique, but I didn't mention it explicitly because I took it
>for granted that bobble.h would provide an incomplete type. [...]
>
Your original message said
>
Quote:
we have definitions like
struct bobble_s {...};
in our bobble.h.
>
>... and the presence of `{...}' led me to believe you were
>contemplating a complete struct declaration, elements and all.
>What *did* you mean by `{...}'?
You're right, that's what I wrote. My bad. Take it as my having
meant to write
we have definitions lik
struct bobble_s {...};
in our bobble.c and struct bobble_s; in bobble.h.
If I recall correctly, I had intended to mention incomplete types
later on in the article and simply forgot. My apologies for
sending you down a false trail.
Richard Harter,
cri@tiac.net http://home.tiac.net/~cri,
http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.
