Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Silly program [was Re: Style [++i vs i++] ]
Message-ID: <206@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Aug-87 13:17:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: xyzzy.206
Posted: Mon Aug 17 13:17:13 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Aug-87 05:23:51 EDT
References: <8298@brl-adm.ARPA> <587@cblpe.ATT.COM> <189@xyzzy.UUCP> <513@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk> <234@nvpna1.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP NC.
Lines: 46

> dcw@doc.ic.ac.uk (Duncan C White)
>> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)

>>What scares me is that a++ *does* always add 1.
> Agreed [...] But I don't quite see why that scares Wayne : 
> It seems like the most convenient behaviour to me..

And to me.  I see I misspoke there.  I meant to say that I was scared
that anybody would think otherwise.

Switching to a different article:

> strouckn@nvpna1.UUCP (Louis Stroucken 42720)
>> msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader)

>>Actually, *declaring* such a pointer is probably illegal.
> I haven't got any ANSI draft here, so I'd better stay out of the
> discussion, but:
> Please note that "a" is a formal argument of main!!

Ok.  Noted.  The type of "a" is  (char (*)[]).  That is, "a" is a pointer.

> K&R appendix A section 10.4 says on array arguments:
> 	...formal parameters declared "array of..." are adjusted to read
> 	"pointer to...".

Since "a" is a pointer, this passage does not apply.  Repeat:  THIS
PASSAGE DOES NOT APPLY.

> The declaration of "a" might as well read "char **a;". "a++;" should
> increment "a" with sizeof( char * ) bytes.

Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.  A formal declared as type (char *[]) "might as
well" be declared with type (char **).  But that's not what was going on.
The formal was of type (char (*)[]), which is not now, never has been,
and Bog willing never will be, equivalent to the type (char **).

> If I miss something, please let me know.

Consider yourself let.  I also post, because this is a common and
recurring misconception that I'd like to nip in the bud (this instance of
it, anyway).

--
In analyzing history do not be too profound,
for often the causes are quite superficial.
                                --- Emerson