Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!warwick!expya!msor!kt
From: kt@msor.UUCP (Keith Tizzard)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: address of function
Keywords: stupid question - sorry Chris, Doug, Karl, Henry, Wayne, Dennis, Guy, William, Andrew, Steve, and of course Blair `Pointer Addition' Houghton
Message-ID: <370@msor0.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jun 89 09:56:14 GMT
References: <2700@solo8.cs.vu.nl>
Sender: Keith Tizzard <kt@uk.ac.exeter.msor>
Reply-To: kt@msor0.UUCP (Keith Tizzard)
Organization: MSOR Department, Exeter University, UK
Lines: 14

In article <2700@solo8.cs.vu.nl> maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
>Why weren't function pointers handled the way below?
>
>	int	foo(), (*bar)() = &foo;
>
>ANSI has fixed this, right?


 ... and does ANSI permit the following ?

	int	this[100], *that = &this;

I was under the impression that there was a symmetry between functions and
arrays.