Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site dg_rtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Address of array
Message-ID: <224@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Mar-86 16:32:25 EST
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.224
Posted: Sun Mar 16 16:32:25 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Mar-86 00:46:55 EST
References: <750@abic.UUCP>, <211@dg_rtp.UUCP> <621@bentley.UUCP>
Lines: 18

>>I agree that C's treatment of array/function/struct addresses is
>>inconsistant, confusing, and limiting.  [...]

> [...] Why do you include struct addresses in your complaint?  I don't see
> anything inconsistent, confusing, or limited in them, at least nothing
> analagous to function and array addresses.

Ah.  Perhaps that *was* confusing of me.  I didn't mean to imply that
handling of arrays, functions and structures are all incorrect.  Just
that the treatment of each of these is not like the treatment of either
of the others.  In some sense, there isn't a "right" way to do it...
it's just that C doesn't treat similar cases (aggregates like arrays and
structs, for example) in analogous ways, and this is inconsistant.

> Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw