Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:13919 comp.std.c:480
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!mcdchg!chinet!att!rutgers!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mcgill-vision!iros1!vedge!lai
From: lai@vedge.UUCP (David Lai)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.c
Subject: Re: union *func()
Keywords: union, pointers, functions
Message-ID: <1770@vedge.UUCP>
Date: 28 Oct 88 17:07:24 GMT
References: <2205@arcturus>
Reply-To: lai@vedge.UUCP (David Lai)
Organization: Visual Edge Software, St. Laurent, PQ
Lines: 20

In article <2205@arcturus> evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie) writes:
>Is the following code portable, strictly conforming, etc.
>	a = function()->member;
>as in something like the following (really simplified) code:
>(proceeds to describe the union pointer of the function return type...)
>It works on (shudder) a VAX running VMS, and for this reason, I
>suspect it is not portable -- can anyone help?

It works on suns and hp-ux (sys V) machines also.  However I read
somewhere (Harbison & Steele):

	-> operator requires an object that is an lvalue
	a function call is NEVER an lvalue

So there is some discrepency here.  Anyone care to comment on what ANSI
says?
-- 
	"What is a DJ if he can't scratch?"  - Uncle Jamms Army
The views expressed are those of the author, and not of Visual Edge, nor Usenet.
David Lai (vedge!lai@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu || ...watmath!onfcanim!vedge!lai)