On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 10:22:13PM +1000, Mikolaj J. Habryn wrote: > DL> You've a zone in memory that can be seen as "char *" but does > DL> not exist a variable that hold such value, so You can't do > DL> &... of a thing that does not exist ! > To put it another way, the C standard explicitly states that passing > an array as an argument causes it to decompose into a pointer to the > base of the array - meaning that f(array, &array) is exactly > equivalent to f(&array, &array). f(array) is *exactly* the same as f(&array[0]). Last time I looked (through K&R), I couldn't actually find anything that said &array was really particularly meaningful. At the very least the type of &array seems weird. I'd be interested in a cite, if you have one. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpCCLlTKRqWj.pgp
Description: PGP signature