Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.bugs.4bsd,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Bug in 4.2BSD C compiler...
Message-ID: <5579@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 14:08:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5579
Posted: Thu May  9 14:08:41 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 14:08:41 EDT
References: <1141@sjuvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 18

> ...  The question arises on the basis of K&R
> pp 114-115, which would seem to indicate that my declaration is acceptable
> on the grounds that pointers to integers and pointers to functions returning
> integers are supposed to be equationally indistinguishable.

I don't know how you got this idea; nothing of the sort appears on pages
114-115 of my copy of K&R.  The only thing there that is even vaguely along
these lines is the observation that function names don't need an & since
the compiler knows they are functions.  They still remain pointers to
functions, not pointers to integers.

Compilers that accept either of your versions are being sloppy.  There
are many sloppy C compilers in the world.  Do not mistake this for
sloppiness in the language.  "int (*foo[])() = {...}" remains the right
way to declare an array of pointers to functions returning int.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry