Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C array follies 1
Message-ID: <1302@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 02:37:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1302
Posted: Sat Sep  7 02:37:05 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 01:04:04 EDT
References: <171@rtp47.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 30

>     void f(x)
>         int x[2][2][2];
>     {
> ...
>     }
>     void main(){
>         int x[2][2][2];
> ...
>         f(x);
>     }
> ...
> I think that most systems will print "4 16 8" (or equivalent) ...

Yes, you are not actually passing an entire array to the function f() but
rather just a pointer to a 2x2 array of ints.  C lets you misdeclare this
	void f( int x[2][2][2] );	/* ANSI C assumed */
which is the real misfeature.  The "correct" declaration is technically
	void f( int (*x)[2][2] );
which also is supported by C (thankfully), or if you prefer,
	void f( int x[][2][2] );

Fortunately, old C did not have this misfeature for structs/unions,
so it was possible to add to C the ability to pass struct arguments
in addition to just pointers to them.  For reasons of backward
compatibility, it is unfortunately NOT possible to change C so that
	f( x );
actually passes the array and not just a pointer to the first element.

Maybe language "D" can fix all C's mistakes (ha).  Meanwhile we just
have to learn to cope with them.