Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!amdcad!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: char (*a)[]  (was: Style [++i vs i++])
Message-ID: <26296@sun.uucp>
Date: Sat, 22-Aug-87 02:38:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.26296
Posted: Sat Aug 22 02:38:08 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 11:38:04 EDT
References: <8942@brl-adm.ARPA>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 23

> So this means I should be able to say:
> 
> a = &b;
> 
> However, as I understand it, b is actually &b[0], which means a gets set
> to &&b[0], which I'm not sure makes any sense at all.

Well, given the current way array names (or array-valued expressions) are
treated, it doesn't.  PCC will treat "&b" as being equivalent to "b".

However, in the langugage described by the current ANSI C draft standard, the
"b is actually &b[0]" rule does not apply in certain contexts; one such context
is that of an operand of "&".  So, in ANSI C, "&b" is valid, and does make
sense; it is a pointer to the array "b", as opposed to being a pointer to the
first member of that array.

(It is a trivial change to PCC to implement this; you just delete a couple of
lines in "cgram.y", namely the one that converts the type of "&b" to "pointer
to <element of b>" and the one that prints a warning message telling you it is
doing so.)
	Guy Harris
	{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
	guy@sun.com