Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbcad!ames!lll-tis!ptsfa!laticorp!sarah
From: sarah@laticorp.UUCP (Sarah Groves Hobart)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: have I found a bug in K&R?
Message-ID: <321@laticorp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Oct-87 13:59:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: laticorp.321
Posted: Fri Oct  9 13:59:38 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Oct-87 06:18:56 EDT
References: <517@hubcap.UUCP>
Organization: LatiCorp, Inc., San Francisco
Lines: 27
Keywords: argv definition

In article <517@hubcap.UUCP>, hubcap@hubcap.UUCP (Mike S Marshall) writes:
> on page 110 of K&R it says:
>   
>     "...(argv) is a pointer to an array of character strings..."
> 
> but since the primary-expression operator [] has higher priority than
> the unary operator *, then isn't it more correct to say that argv
> (which is defined as char *argv[]) is an array of pointers to character
> strings?

What is actually being declared is a pointer to an array of pointers. 
Remember that the following declarations are equivalent:

char s[];

char *s;

Most people would tend to call the first declaration a character string, 
and the second a character pointer, but they are the same thing.  So K&R
are just using slightly different terminology, probably in the interests
of clarity.

An array of pointers to character strings would be a pointer to an array
of pointers to an array of pointers.

Sarah Groves Hobart
{ihnp4,amdahl,sun}!ptsfa!laticorp!sarah