Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: offsetof (was Arithmetic on NULL)
Message-ID: <907@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Oct-87 12:46:48 EST
Article-I.D.: sugar.907
Posted: Sun Oct 25 12:46:48 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Oct-87 05:35:09 EST
References: <1459@cullvax.UUCP> <48400001@tub.UUCP> <1151@haddock.ISC.COM> <2500@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 29
Summary: Unary & in constant expressions is needed.

In article <2500@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
> In article <1076@jenny.cl.cam.ac.uk> am@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alan Mycroft) writes:
> |I have a concern about this.  ANSI (Oct 86) specifically disallows
> |unary-& from appearing in constant expressions (no doubt
> |except in sizeof() context)....

Does this mean the following use of & in &STD_Gadget[n], which is being
used in a context that requires a constant expression, is not ANSI standard?

#define G(n) &STD_Gadget[n]
...other #defines removed for terseness...

static struct Gadget STD_Gadget[GADGETS] = {
/*NEXT, LFT, TP,WDTH, H, FLAG,  ACT, TYP, REND, Z, TXT, Z, SPEC, ID, Z */
{ G(1), IN1,TP1, WD1,HT, SF,     SA,  SG,    Z, Z,   Z, Z, SI(0), 0, 0 },
{ G(2), IN1,TP2, WD1,HT, SF|SEL, SA,  SG,    Z, Z,   Z, Z, SI(1), 1, 0 },
{ G(3), IN1,TP3, WD1,HT, SF,     SA,  SG,    Z, Z,   Z, Z, SI(2), 2, 0 },
{ NULL, IN5,TP5, WD5,HT5,PF,     PA,  PG, IMAG, Z,   Z, Z,  PROP, 3, 0 }
};

Are you trying to tell me that building a linked list statically like this
is not valid 'C' code? One of the great advantages 'C' has over *any* other
conventional high level language[1] I know of is the ability to build complex
data structures statically.
--
[1] I hope you don't think Lisp, Forth, and APL are conventional languages.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.