Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!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: <1530@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 25 Nov 88 19:44:11 GMT
References: <207600008@s.cs.uiuc.edu> <1506@buengc.BU.EDU> <950@vsi.COM>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 32

In article <950@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
>In article <1506@buengc.BU.EDU>, bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>> 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...
>
>Casts are "abstract declarations".  This means that if you drop the
>outer parens, there is exactly one place where a variable name (say,
>`foo') could be inserted to make this a real declaration.  Above,
>the only place would be:
>
>	int *(*foo)()
>
>So, this is "cast to ptr to function returning ptr to int".

But is there anything illegal about

	int *(*)foo()

and would those "extra" parentheses change the precedence of that *
declarator at all, viz

	double *barz[]  /* declare barz as array of ptr to double */
	
	double (*)barz[]  /* declare barz as ptr to array of double.
			     Or does it? */

				--Blair