"Referenced type "

[lawrence.jones]

Is there a philosopher in the house? I bet there are whole
news groups devoted to debating the meaning of "complete"

There are, but they're incomplete.

 

[Bartc]

I think you'll find that C writes this as

#define y 42

That was an imaginary bit of C. The closest that would also make my point
would be:

enum {y=42};

Then x,y are both names of something of type int; both have an int value
(41,42), but only one has an address.

#define y 42 is just another way of writing 42, which is just a constant
value with no name (the name 'y' being stripped by the preprocessor).

 

[Keith Thompson]

Lets do:
incomplete
adjective
not having all the necessary or appropriate parts

type
noun
1 a category of people or things having common characteristics
¥ a person, thing, or event considered as a representative of such a category


So we have a thing having common characteristics not having all the
necessary or appropriate parts.

Makes perfect semantic sense.

The problem is simple, by not using the phrase in the standard
"incomplete type" and instead writing "incomplete", the sentence
invoked common English definitions as you say an adjective not a
proper noun.

However if we consider that "incomplete" isn't an adjective but is a
proper noun (refers to a specific thing) then you are attempting to
parse the sentence as likely intended, but you fail because
"incomplete" doesn't appear in the standard, only "incomplete type"
unless "incomplete" is slang for "incomplete type." [I didn't think
the standard permits slang, but we all learn something new every
day.]

But that is still incorrect English. Missing is the definite article "the"
between "is" and "incomplete." It should read, "It is a type that is the
Incomplete Type."

Now syntax is correct and semantics make sense.

Back to my original contention, which you advanced by calling "incomplete" an
adjective and not a proper noun:
A thing having common characteristics not having all the necessary or
appropriate parts, means you don't have a type because it is lacking the
necessary stuff to be a type.

Got my point yet?

Yes, I got your point some time ago. You're still wrong.

The idea that "incomplete" is a proper noun is nonsense. There is not
a single "Incomplete Type"; there can be a multitude of distint
incomplete types: ``void'', ``struct not_yet_defined'', etc.

We've cited the standard's definition of "incomplete type", which
makes it clear that an "incomplete type" is a type. One more time,
C99 6.2.5p1:

... _incomplete types_ (types that describe objects but lack
information needed to determine their sizes).

An incomplete type lacks some characteristics, particularly those
needed to determine its size. It does not lack characteristics
necessary to make it a type.

To pick a random analogy, we might reasonably refer to an analog clock
with a missing second hand as an "incomplete clock", but it's still a
clock.

Do you merely dislike the way the standard expresses this, or are you
genuinely having difficulty understanding it? Since it's obviously
the intent that ``void'' is a type (many things in the language would
break if it weren't), do you have a constructive suggestion for a
better way to express the idea that it's a type that lacks certain
characteristics? In my opinion, the current wording is just fine; if
you think it needs to be changed, posting a concrete proposal for an
improvement to comp.std.c is probably the best way to start.

Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?