Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!mikros!mwtech!martin
From: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: legality of assignment of function to a void *.
Message-ID: <965@mwtech.UUCP>
Date: 19 Nov 90 13:14:03 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.211511.2344@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <1990Nov13.174920.2235@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov14.031125.14027@athena.mit.e
Reply-To: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)
Organization: MIKROS Systemware, Darmstadt/W-Germany
Lines: 26

In article <1990Nov14.031125.14027@athena.mit.edu> tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Zehr) writes:
[function pointers beeing completly different creatures than data pointers]

>My main
>source of confusion was K&R2 (p. 199, "Any pointer may be converted to
>type void * without loss of information.  If the result is converted
>back to the original pointer type, the original pointer is recovered.")
>
>This seems very misleading to me.  (Yes, I know that K&R2 is not the
>official ANSI specification for C.)

Yes, it seems a problem fopr me too that there are some "references" which
in general appear well-trustable (like K&R-II) but fail to specify a few
not so well known portability traps.

How about adding a list of such things to the FAQ in c.l.c? I think
this would be helpful to the vast majority, who either can't afford
the X3.159-1989 document because of the high price, or who don't have
the time and patience to read it very very carefully.

The problem may be that such a list should not degenerate into
(another) specification of ANSI C, but that is not be so hard to
avoid if we leave out all things, that are obvious from K&R-II,
or rather esoteric.
-- 
Martin Weitzel, email: martin@mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83