Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: help with a MESSY C definition!!?
Message-ID: <1506@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 22 Nov 88 01:13:16 GMT
References: <207600008@s.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 35

In article <207600008@s.cs.uiuc.edu> dlee@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>I usually don't have any trouble with C, but this is a glaring exception:  I
>need the syntax of definition for an array (of arbitrary size) of pointers to
>functions returning pointers to integer (HOW'S *THAT* FOR A DOOZY!!!).  My
>closest (possibly correct) guess follows:
>
>	int *(*opfuncs[])() = {
>		.
>		.
>		.
>	};

Let's play precedence:

opfuncs[]		is an array;
*opfuncs[]		is an array of pointers
(*opfuncs[])()		is an array of pointers to function
*(*opfuncs[])()		is an array of pointers to function returning pointer
int *(*opfuncs[])()	is an array of pointers to function returning pointer
				to int.

I'll buy it.

Now, prove that 

	(int *(*)())

is unambiguously "cast to pointer to function returning pointer
to int" and never misinterpreted as "cast to function returning pointer
to pointer to int," whatever the hell that means...

				--Blair
				  "Take two asterisks and call me
				   in the morning."