Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!boulder!pikes!slate!jedelen
From: jedelen@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Jeff Edelen @ Colorado School of Mines)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Invoking pointers to functions (C sytle)
Message-ID: <1990Dec02.204212.15465@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 90 20:42:12 GMT
References: <6379@harrier.ukc.ac.uk>
Organization: Colorado School of Mines
Lines: 33

In article <6379@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> dac@ukc.ac.uk (David Clear) writes:
>Take a look at this:
>
>main()
>{
>	int fred(), (*p)();
>
>	p = fred;
>
>	(*p)(10);		/* The right way */
>	p(10);			/* This works too */
>}
>
>int
>fred(x)
>...
>
>The (*p)(args) invocation is the K&R standard. p(args) also works on at
>least 4 different Unix compilers.
>
>Q: Is p(args) legal, portable C?
>Q: Is p(args) preferential to (*p)(args) as it looks neater, compare:
>	s->p(args)	(*s->p)(args)
>
>Any thoughts? I've only ever used (*p)()... I only came across p() recently.
>
>Dave.

It always seemed to me that p(args) is logically more consistent.  If you
call the function fred() normally with fred(args) and fred (no parens)
is a pointer to the function, then if p is a pointer to the same function,
just adding the parens should have the same effect.  As for what's legal...
anyone?


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com