Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: To dereference or not dereference,
Message-ID: <2600040@ccvaxa>
Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 22:58:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2600040
Posted: Wed Mar 12 22:58:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 03:39:44 EST
References: <196@aplvax.UUCP>
Lines: 33
Nf-ID: #R:aplvax.UUCP:196:ccvaxa:2600040:000:1067
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Mar 12 21:58:00 1986


>/* Written  4:55 pm  Mar  6, 1986 by kwh@bentley.UUCP in ccvaxa:net.lang.c */
>In article <44@umcp-cs.UUCP> umcp-cs!chris (Chris Torek) writes:
>>		int f(), (*p)();
>>		p = f;
>>		p(1);
>>		(*p)(2);
>>		(**p)(3);
>>		(****************p)(4);
>
>Although there is no excuse for "p(1)", the other three examples are
>in fact correct.  Recall that there are only two things you can do
>with a function (not a pointer): call it (as in f()) or take its
>address (any other use of the name).  Thus "p = f" takes the address
>of function f and stores it in pointer p.

According to what I've heard about the ANSI C standard, "p(1)" is permitted,
with a half-decent reason behind it. C does not let you have segmented
names for functions. This way you can get them:

	       	struct {
			int (*draw)();
		} graph;

		graph.draw = my_favorite_draw_function;

		graph.draw();	/* is equivalent to */
		(*graph.draw)();

graph.draw is slightly cleaner, although more confusing.

Now, if we could just initialize a function pointer with the address of
an in-line lambda function.