Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  C declarations
Message-ID: <328@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 12:26:32 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.328
Posted: Thu Feb 14 12:26:32 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 06:47:17 EST
References: <8302@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 31
Summary: 

I think the article by jsdy@SEISMO is generally good, and clarifies
a major confusion, but I disagree on one minor point.

In article <8302@brl-tgr.ARPA> jsdy@SEISMO.ARPA writes:
>
>An array (int ia[N];) is actually N real objects of the type of which
>you have the array.  (Did I say that right?)  So, in this case, if
>N == 4, then I have just reserved space for 4 int's.  The real objects
>that exist, here, are ia[0], ia[1], ia[2], and ia[3].  The symbol "ia"
>here refers to no single existing object.
>
>So, now comes the confusing part.  "Ia" doesn't refer to any existing
>object -- so, for instance, an attempt to say:
>	ia = new_value;
>gets an error from C.  But if we use "ia" as a pure value, it appears
>to have a value which is the address of the first element of the array
>(often put, "the address of the array").  We can then do pointer arith-
>metic with this value!  In this way, it  a p p e a r s  to be (but is
>not) a pointer.

	I say "ia" *is* a pointer, a pointer *constant*, with the
same relation to a pointer variable as an integer constant has to
an integer varible. This way the basis for both the similarities
*and* differences between "int ia[n]" and "int *ip" are explained.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
 or
quad1!psivax!friesen