Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pointers to functions
Message-ID: <16160@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 15 May 91 21:40:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: smoke.16160
References: <AJ3U.91May14140642@wilbury.cs.virginia.edu> <1512@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <1512@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>Actually, I believe this is probably due to an influence from C++, ...

No.  What we did for the C standard was to rationalize existing practice,
which allowed the use of a function identifier where a pointer-to-function
was needed, and also allowed one to call functions using the unadorned
(except for the parenthesized argument list) identifier.  It had nothing
to do with any attempt to emulate C++.