Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mtxinu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!vlsvax1!qantel!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!ed
From: ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.bugs.4bsd,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Bug in 4.2BSD C compiler...
Message-ID: <376@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-May-85 02:04:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtxinu.376
Posted: Sat May 11 02:04:22 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 14-May-85 23:47:46 EDT
References: <1141@sjuvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.unix:4502 net.bugs.4bsd:1519 net.lang.c:5205

>                                  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 sure don't read it that way.  What you may be misreading is that
a declaration of a function, e.g.

	int funct();

is in effect declaring funct to be, in some semantic equivalency sort of way,
to be a pointer to a function.  The sequence

	f() {
	    int f2();
	    int (*f3)();

	    f3 = f2;
	    (*f3)();
	}

is reasonable and legal; the sequence

	f() {
	    int f2();
	    int *f3();

	    f3 = f2;
	    (*f3)();
	}

makes no real sense.  The key is that () binds tighter than *.  Of course,

	*f3();

(assuming that f3 is a function returning a pointer) is also reasonable,
but has *very* different meaning.

-- 
Ed Gould		    mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed   +1 415 644 0146