Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!cmcl2!phri!marob!samperi
From: samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: AT&T C compilers
Keywords: C compiler,bug?
Message-ID: <572@marob.MASA.COM>
Date: 26 Feb 89 17:17:32 GMT
References: <569@marob.MASA.COM> <1071@auspex.UUCP>
Reply-To: samperi@marob.masa.com (Dominick Samperi)
Organization: ESCC  New York City
Lines: 15

In article <1071@auspex.UUCP> guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
>I don't know whether it's legal C++ or not; if it is, I suspect the
>declaration says, in C++, that the function to which the pointer points
>takes no arguments (since C++, unlike C, does not have the notion of
>"old-style" function declarations where an empty argument list indicates
>that the types of the arguments are unknown).

It is legal in C++ (see Section 8.7 of Stroustrup's text). Furthermore,
changing the declaration to 'extern bob(double (*)(void)) ;' does not
help. The only thing that the C++ translator will swallow is
'typedef double (*PFD)() ; extern bob(PFD) ;'.
-- 
Dominick Samperi -- ESCC
samperi@marob.masa.com
uunet!hombre!samperi