> > } BAR;
> [...]
> 
> I don't particularly like that.  My preference, personally, is to use "_t"
> to represent typedefs thus:

This is a good point, too - I missed that.   I think _t has always
been the way BSD has done it, hasn't it?   I mean, FILE is a K&R
thing, not a BSD thing.

			       _MelloN_