Article View: comp.std.c
Article #2359Re: typedefing functions (Re: Is typedef char BUFFER[20] legal?)
From: Henry Spencer
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 1991 23:44
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 1991 23:44
20 lines
1165 bytes
1165 bytes
In article <ENAG.91Feb4192806@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) writes:
>you can say
> typedef int f (int a, char *b);
>and later say
> f foo, bar, zot;
>and
> f *functab[3] = { foo, bar, zot, };
Correct so far.
>The functions would be declared
> f foo
> { ... }
Nope, wrong. The function definition itself must contain an explicit
function declarator; it cannot inherit its "functionness" from a typedef.
See Constraints in 3.7.1.
--
"Maybe we should tell the truth?" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Surely we aren't that desperate yet." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991Feb4.234441.17203@zoo.toronto.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henryReferences:
<1212@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> <1991Jan29.210100.8105@zoo.toronto.edu> <22642@netcom.UUCP> <1991Feb3.000128.15980@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Feb4.053613.3758@watmath.waterloo.edu> <ENAG.91Feb4192806@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.std.c Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!henry From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: typedefing functions (Re: Is typedef char BUFFER[20] legal?) Message-ID: <1991Feb4.234441.17203@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <1212@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> <1991Jan29.210100.8105@zoo.toronto.edu> <22642@netcom.UUCP> <1991Feb3.000128.15980@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Feb4.053613.3758@watmath.waterloo.edu> <ENAG.91Feb4192806@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 1991 23:44:41 GMT