home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: newshost.lanl.gov!tanmoy
- From: tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov (Tanmoy Bhattacharya)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Need HELP by a C hacker....
- Date: 02 Mar 1996 19:38:00 GMT
- Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
- Message-ID: <TANMOY.96Mar2123800@qcd.lanl.gov>
- References: <4h5mhv$mh9@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <4h7qccINN8m9@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: qcd.lanl.gov
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text
- In-reply-to: c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca's message of 1 Mar 1996 13:31:56 -0800
-
- In article <4h7qccINN8m9@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca (Kazimir Kylheku) writes:
-
- KK: Try:
- KK:
- KK: void (* foo(void))(void)
- KK:
- KK: {
- KK: return foo;
- KK: }
-
- A compiler must diagnose the type mismatch between
- void(*(*)(void))(void), the type of the expression foo, and
- void(*)(void), the return type of foo. My other post in this thread
- discusses solutions.
-
- KK:
- KK: What is the point of returning a pointer to a function from the function
- KK: itself? You can just write "foo" anywhere you need its value. If
- you can call
- KK: foo, then you already know its address, so there is no point in
- computing it
- KK: inside foo.
-
- These are useful in constructing finite state machines, for example.
-
- Cheers
- Tanmoy
- --
- tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov(128.165.23.46) DECNET: BETA::"tanmoy@lanl.gov"(1.218=1242)
- Tanmoy Bhattacharya O:T-8(MS B285)LANL,NM87545 H:#9,3000,Trinity Drive,NM87544
- Others see <gopher://yaleinfo.yale.edu:7700/00/Internet-People/internet-mail>,
- <http://alpha.acast.nova.edu/cgi-bin/inmgq.pl>or<ftp://csd4.csd.uwm.edu/pub/
- internetwork-mail-guide>. -- <http://nqcd.lanl.gov/people/tanmoy/tanmoy.html>
- fax: 1 (505) 665 3003 voice: 1 (505) 665 4733 [ Home: 1 (505) 662 5596 ]
-