Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: pointers to arrays
Message-ID: <1052@auspex.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 89 19:13:36 GMT
References: <19784@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1042@auspex.UUCP> <19797@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Reply-To: guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 28

>AUUUGH!

Yeesh.  Stop screaming, and please get either a copy of the pANS or of K&R
Second Edition, and read it, before discussing this issue any further. 
This stuff really will work reasonably, whether you believe it yet or not.

>what happens if you say (*foo) = muck (where muck is int muck[13])

The compiler, if it's at all good, says "sorry, the left-hand side isn't
a valid lvalue, try again".  No, (d)pANS C doesn't support array
assignment.

>(Long discussion which assumes that, if you can get a pointer to an
>array you *must* be able to assign to it as a whole, and thus concludes
>that "pointer to array" is an invalid concept)

No, just because you can get a pointer to an array (BTW, C has supported
the notion of "pointer to array" for quite a while, it just made it
inconvenient to construct certain values of that type until (d)pANS C
allowed you to stick & in front of an array-valued expression) doesn't
mean you can put an array on the LHS of an assignment; not all things
you can apply the & operator to are lvalues.

Again, *please* get a copy of, say, K&R Second Edition, and read it
thoroughly before commenting any further.  Unfortunately, you'll have to
read the "C Reference Manual" appendix for this stuff; there doesn't
seem to be much in the way of tutorial information on the notion of a
pointer to an array.