Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!excelan!unix!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclisp!hpclwjm!walter
From: walter@hpclwjm.HP.COM (Walter Murray)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: "array" vs. "&array" ? (not again!  :-O )
Message-ID: <660070@hpclwjm.HP.COM>
Date: 11 Jan 90 17:48:20 GMT
References: <571@mwtech.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Calif. Language Lab
Lines: 28

Gary L. Randolph writes:

> If this part of the answer does not seem reasonable, take it up with
> Harbison and Steele's second edition.  The statement was taken verbatim
> from page 273, section 11.6.4.

[Quoting H&S-2:  "The address operator & applied to an array yields
"pointer to array of T" or "pointer to pointer to T".]

This statement by Harbison and Steele contradicts ANSI C.  They
should not have added the part about "pointer to pointer to T".
ANSI 3.3.3.2.

> And, if that is not enough, see page 200 A7.1 of K&R2 (or read below).

> If the type of an expression or subexpression is "array of T," for
> some type T, then the value of the expression is a pointer to the
> first object in the array, and the type of the expression is altered
> to "pointer to T".

> K&R2 does not say that the above is true only for a few special cases.

Read the very next sentence:  "This conversion does not take place if
the expression is the operand of the unary & operator ... ."
This is in ANSI 3.2.2.1.

Walter Murray
----------