Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!ames!cit-vax!news
From: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Usenet netnews)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Problem making cfront 1.1 on 4.3BSD
Message-ID: <1232@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Tue, 25-Nov-86 01:16:03 EST
Article-I.D.: cit-vax.1232
Posted: Tue Nov 25 01:16:03 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Nov-86 07:06:36 EST
References: <3960003@nucsrl.UUCP> <765@sauron.UUCP>
Reply-To: jon@cit-vax.UUCP (Jon Leech)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 25

Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords: 
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Path: oddhack!jon

In article <765@sauron.UUCP> wescott@sauron.UUCP (Mike Wescott) writes:
>In article <3960003@nucsrl.UUCP> gore@nucsrl.UUCP (Jacob Gore) writes:
>> ...
>> 	sick(SIGILL,core_dump);
>> ...
>> Now, if I understand this correctly, 'sick' is a pointer to the 'signal'
>> function.  In that case, shouldn't the call be "(*sick)(SIGILL,core_dump);"?
>
>Not necessarily.  Both expressions are equivalent in C++ as well as in C.
>...
>I can't find a similar blessing in K&R, but my reading of 3.3.2.2 of the July 9
>draft of the ANSI-C standard leads me to believe that it is legit in C as
>well.  Besides, the compilers take it.  ...

	ANSI C does not exist yet, and there are definitely compilers
that do NOT take the first usage; for example the Amdahl UTS C compiler.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/