Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!decvax!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: address of function
Message-ID: <13685@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 13 Jun 89 01:34:24 GMT
References: <2700@solo8.cs.vu.nl> <370@msor0.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 18

In article <370@msor0.UUCP> kt@msor0.UUCP (Keith Tizzard) writes:
>... and does ANSI permit the following ?
>	int	this[100], *that = &this;
>I was under the impression that there was a symmetry between functions and
>arrays.

The symmetry you're looking for is there, but your example isn't analogous to
Maarten's.  It does work to write
	int  this[100], (*that)[100] = &this;
which is analogous to
	int  foo(void), (*bar)(void) = &foo;

This particular symmetry holds only if the explicit "&" is used.  Writing
"this" without the ampersand yields the same as "&this", but writing "foo"
without the ampersand yields "&foo[0]", which is not the same as "&foo".
(Though they will compare equal if brought to a common type.)

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint