vijay@bradley.UUCP (03/07/89)
/* Written 11:19 am Feb 16, 1989 by gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL in bradley:comp.lang.c */ In article <3927@ingr.com> crossgl@ingr.com (Gordon Cross) writes: >Allright, the recent discussion regarding pointers to arrays in C reminds >me of something that I consider to be a major deficiency of the language. It is actually the fact that arrays are not first-class objects in C that is the deficiency. This cannot be fully remedied without invalidating large amounts of existing correct code. >Since I am allowed to declare something that has type "pointer to an array >of...", then why am I not permitted to apply the '&' (address of) operator >directly to an array?? In ANSI C, you are allowed to do so. Many existing (PCC-based) compilers permit &array but ignore the &. That is not the ANSI C behavior, though. For maximal portability you should avoid using &array for a few years. /* End of text from bradley:comp.lang.c */