Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit345!diamond From: diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: More Re: Function Argument Evaluation argument Message-ID: <1991Apr9.003102.11176@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Date: 9 Apr 91 00:31:02 GMT References: <18140@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1991Apr6.022220.6449@twinsun.com> <1991Apr8.191009.24897@cs.ucla.edu> Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo Lines: 15 In article <1991Apr8.191009.24897@cs.ucla.edu> jon@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Jonathan Gingerich) writes: >So what about: > (*fp)(fp = &g) Intuitively, either the function previously pointed to, or g, could be called, though the argument would have to be a pointer to g. (But this is not what the standard says.) Pedantically, the net.random_marauders could be called, because the expression fetches the old value of fp for a purpose other than determining the new value to be stored. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.