Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: How do I declare... (I knew that!)
Message-ID: <164@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 13:20:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.164
Posted: Thu Aug 29 13:20:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 09:07:45 EDT
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 27

I have been inundated with a flood of postings and mail saying "you
can so declare a pointer to a function returning a pointer to a
function".  I started replying by mail, but this proves impractical due
to volume.  Let me introduce my defense as I did in the first letter I
sent out:

"Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!"

There.  I feel better now.  I really *did know* that you can declare
pointers to arrays of pointers to arrays (of primitive types), and
pointers to functions returning pointers to functions (returning
primitive types).  I thought it was clear from the context that I meant
that it is impossible to declare a pointer to a function returning
pointer to function *of that function's own type*.  But noooooooo!  All
you nit-pickers assumed I meant what I said!  Sheeesh!   :-)

In any event, I still maintain that C's type notation is deficent, in
that it only allows recursion in declarations of structs, unions, and
enums (and I haven't found a use for recursion in enums).  It does *not*
allow recursion in type declaractions that contain only pointer,
function, or array constructs.

If you wish to show me the error of my ways, mail or post a typedef F
of a pointer-to-function-returning-type-F.  My claim is that C allows no
such constructs, and that this lack is a shortcoming of the C language.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw