Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!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: <13731@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Date: 16 Jun 89 02:46:48 GMT
References: <2700@solo8.cs.vu.nl> <370@msor0.UUCP> <1817@auspex.auspex.com> <10361@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 27

In article <10361@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) writes:
>In article <1817@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
>>["int this[100], *that = &this;" is not legal ANSI C]
>
>Oh I'm so glad ANSI is standardizing existing practices instead of
>inventing new RESTRICTIONS.  This rule won't break much existing,
>FORMERLY UNBROKEN source code, now will it?  :-S  (sarcasm)

No, it won't break any correct code, and it removes a restriction rather than
adding one.  Pre-ANSI C did not allow one to apply "&" to an array (see K&R1,
p. 94, next to last paragraph).  Perhaps you're thinking of the "feature" that
certain compilers flag this as a warning only, and ignore the "&".

>Could one also do it in this way?
>	int	this[100], *that = (int *)&this;
>	int	this[100], *that = (void *)&this;

I suppose that would work, but why don't you just write "that = &this[0]" (or
even "that = this"), if that's your intent?

>i.e.:  when a cast implies an assignment to an anonymous temporary, it
>becomes a non-lvalue -- ok; but does it also become a non-constant?

I can't think of any context in which the language cares whether an rvalue is
a "constant" or not.

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