Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!abvax!iccgcc!browns
From: browns@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A question on Function declaration
Message-ID: <3256.27b95578@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 13 Feb 91 20:04:24 GMT
References: <5806@agate.UUCP> <5807@marble.UUCP>
Lines: 30

In article <5807@marble.UUCP>, sland@motcid.UUCP (Stephen Shortland) writes:
> joshi@motcid.UUCP (Abhay B. Joshi) writes:
> 
>>I would like to  declare a function which returns a pointer to a function
>>(that returns an integer). I have been unable to strike at the correct
>>syntax of such a declaration. 
> 
>>I tried the following (among others):
>>	((int *)()) func() ;
>>Doesn't work.

I'm just a wussy little fraidy-cat (TM), so I do it in stages.  You don't
say what arguments either of the functions takes, so I'll assume one
takes a char * and the other takes a double.

A function that takes a char * and returns an int is 'int func(char *);'.
Its type might be called 'FC_I':
    typedef int FC_I(char *);
A pointer to such a function would be a 'FC_I *'.  So a function that
takes a double and returns such a pointer would be
    FC_I *desired_func(double);

This goes in two steps, unlike the other solutions I've seen.  But
it's imposible to get the parentheses wrong with this method.

Comments from anyone?  Disadvantages I've missed?

Hey--this is all my opinion, nobody else's. Rely on it at your peril.
                                   email: browns@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA    +1 216 371 0043