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