Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!rob
From: rob@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Wallen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: More on MPW C 3.0 question
Message-ID: <2966@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au>
Date: 22 Feb 90 10:10:39 GMT
References: <162.25dfe4b3@waikato.ac.nz> <10311@hoptoad.uucp> <1629@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk>
Reply-To: rob@murtoa.UUCP (Robert Wallen)
Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia
Lines: 28

In article <1629@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk> you write:
>References: <162.25dfe4b3@waikato.ac.nz>
>>"Str255 *tempp" makes no sense.  You can't have a pointer to an array
>>in C.  The compiler should choke on this, but it doesn't.  Instead,
>
>Please, give me a break. Why can't you have pointers to arrays in C?

Agreed.  However...

>I mean, how do you explain `char *argv[]' and `char **argv'?
>Surely, you must be familiar with this.

Well, yes I am.  char*argv[] is an array of POINTERS, not a pointer to an
array.  char**argv is a POINTER to a POINTER, not a pointer to an array.
C lets you use pointers as arrays but that doesnt make them the same thing.
You CAN have pointers to arrays but your example did not have anything to it
I think you are thinking of char (*argv)[]

>Oh, by the way; I'm pretty sure that the definition of StringPtr
>goes smth. like: `typedef Str255 *StringPtr'. Looks familiar? :-)
>(Haven't looked it up though...)

I hadnt looked it up, but I 'knew' it was wrong so I did and ...

/* from THINK_C 4.0 */

typedef unsigned char Str255[256];
typedef unsigned char * StringPtr,** StringHandle ;