Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!reading!onion!riddle!john
From: john@riddle.UUCP (Jonathan Leffler)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Another portable code question
Message-ID: <402@riddle.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jun-87 10:54:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: riddle.402
Posted: Mon Jun 22 10:54:54 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 17:29:08 EDT
References: <16673@cca.CCA.COM> <1122@copper.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: john@riddle.UUCP (Jonathan Leffler)
Organization: Sphinx Ltd., Maidenhead, England
Lines: 15

>In article <16673@cca.CCA.COM>, g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) writes:
>> ...on a wide variety of UNIX systems the line "(*command)(args);"
>> may be written as "(command)(args)".

For what it is worth, on the ICL Perq, the syntax
	command(args)
was interpreted as
	(*command)(args)
which makes some sort of sense (all function names can be thought of
as pointers to functions).  We only learnt that this was unusual when
we ported to other compilers (lots of 'em), and they only accepted (*f)().

------
My views are mine.
Jonathan Leffler