Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Bug in 4.2BSD C compiler...
Message-ID: <1711@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 11:01:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1711
Posted: Thu May  9 11:01:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 02:06:36 EDT
References: <1141@sjuvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 30

>[jss@sjuvax (J. Shapiro)]
>
> [...]
>
>int usr1(), usr2(), usr3();
>
>int *procs[] = { usr1, usr2, usr3 };
>
>---------------------------------
>
>Now, several people observed that
>
>int (*procs[])() = ...
>
>will work, and this is correct.  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 understand how you read those pages of K&R and came to your
conclusion.  I don't see anything there that says that integers and
pointers to functions returning integers are "indistinguishable".

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]