gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (11/09/89)
In article <90460@pyramid.pyramid.com> markhall@pyrps5.pyramid.com (Mark Hall) writes: >Under K&R, one would define a function returning a funtion pointer as: > int ( * frfp () ) (p0, p1) int p0, p1; {} I'm not sure K&R1 said that, but if so, they were wrong, since AT&T's own PCC rejects that with two "syntax error" diagnostics. >You *cannot* define this function as: > int ( * frfp (p0,p1) ) () int p0, p1; {} And PCC accepts this one. >... is this a quiet change, or is there something I've overlooked? It's sure not a quiet change in UNIX practice. I don't know of any compilers that required the former construct instead of the latter.