Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!cme!durer!rowe
From: rowe@cme.nist.gov (Walter Rowe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C question -- pointer to array of characters
Message-ID: <ROWE.89Oct18115041@rosie.cme.nist.gov>
Date: 18 Oct 89 15:50:41 GMT
References: <6569@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@cme.nbs.gov
Distribution: usa
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Lines: 33
In-reply-to: kunkee@ficc.uu.net's message of 17 Oct 89 22:37:59 GMT

>>>> On 17 Oct 89 22:37:59 GMT, kunkee@ficc.uu.net (randy kunkee XNX MGR) said:

kunkee> main()
kunkee> {
kunkee> 	char (*foo)[];
kunkee>  	char bar[20];
kunkee>
kunkee> 	foo = bar;
kunkee> }

(1) `bar' is an array of characters

(2) `foo' is a pointer to an array of characters, meaning that it's
    supposed to hold the array's address.  So, `foo' should hold the
    address of `bar'.

(3) The value of `bar' is the address of the first character in the
    array.  The value of `&bar' is the address of the array `bar'.

The proper assignment, as you already know from other postings, is;

    foo = &bar;

Now `foo' contains the address of the array `bar'.

The compiler was right to complain about this since you weren't using
`foo' in the manner that you declared it.  Others made that point
clear, however, no one explained the reason why.  This is not a flame,
just trying to help you understand how things are interpreted.

Walter
--
This is just my opinion ...