Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!dalcs!dalegass
From: dalegass@dalcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: Bad Pointer Declaration in 'scandir'
Message-ID: <2491@dalcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Mar-87 07:26:00 EST
Article-I.D.: dalcs.2491
Posted: Mon Mar 30 07:26:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Mar-87 04:57:53 EST
References: <2479@dalcs.UUCP> <5916@mimsy.UUCP>
Organization: Dept. of Math., Stats & C.S., Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Canada
Lines: 24
Keywords: scandir, C, pointers, man
Xref: utgpu comp.lang.c:1377 comp.bugs.4bsd:252
Summary: Pointer to abiguous-sized array allowed?

Minor point:

In article <5916@mimsy.UUCP>, chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
> >read] struct direct *(*namelist)[];
> 
> No: for there is no such thing.  A declaration for a pointer to an
> array must specify the size of the array.  In fact, what both the
> code and the manual *should* say is
> 
> 	struct direct ***namelist;

I disagree with this.  I think a pointer to an array need not specify the
array size.  The compiler (all the one's I've dealt with) will allow this
omission of array size.  In many cases, it is required to be able to allow
pointers to different size arrays being passed to a function.

struct direct ***namelist will work exactly the same as *(namelist)[], but
the latter is a bit more intuitive (if you can call *any* C declarations
intuitive).  A pointer to an array of pointers to ..... is what the beast
actually is.  A pointer to a pointer to a pointer to .... will work the same,
but leaves a little bit to be desired in the understanding of it.


dalegass@dalcs.uucp