jkl@csli.Stanford.EDU (John Kallen) (05/27/89)
In article <10213@claris.com> kevin@claris.com (Kevin Watts) writes: >I've never liked the typedef nonsense. C++'s approach is, IMHO, the way >C should have behaved from the beginning. Since I've never yet had to >convert any C code to C++, I've had no problems with compatability. Does anybody know the reason why structs are defined as they are in C? I.e. why do I have to say "struct foo" instead of just the tag "foo"? John. _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\ | | /|\ | John Kallen | |\ \|/ \| * |/ | |/| | | PoBox 11215 "Life. Don't talk to me | |\ /|\ |\ * |\ | | | | Stanford CA 94309 about life." _|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________