Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!taumet!steve
From: steve@taumet.com (Stephen Clamage)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: legality of assignment of function to a void *.
Message-ID: <519@taumet.com>
Date: 18 Nov 90 00:48:03 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.211511.2344@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <1990Nov13.174920.2235@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov14.031125.14027@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Taumetric Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 26

tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Zehr) writes:

>In article <1990Nov13.174920.2235@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Function pointers are a whole different universe from normal pointers, in
>>principle.

>I've tried to follow the new ansi rules pretty carefully and I wasn't
>aware of this until recently when it was pointed out here....  My main
>source of confusion was K&R2 ...
>(Yes, I know that K&R2 is not the
>official ANSI specification for C.)  Does anyone know if this was
>something that was changed after K&R2 was written?

It was not changed after K&R2 -- I don't have a copy of the book, but
is it possible that there is a larger context where they stated they
were discussing pointers to data objects?

>What about other
>statements in K&R2 that are misleading or conflict with the standard?

K&R2 is not the standard.  The standard is ANSI X3.159-1989.  If you
find misleading or conflicting statements in any book, you should
notify the author(s) (presumably via the publisher).
-- 

Steve Clamage, TauMetric Corp, steve@taumet.com