From: utzoo!decvax!cca!jim@RAND-UNIX@sri-unix
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Title: Re: C question
Article-I.D.: sri-unix.2002
Posted: Fri Jul  2 03:18:43 1982
Received: Sat Jul  3 01:21:42 1982

Date: Wednesday, 23 Jun 1982 10:47-PDT
I don't think you can claim the compiler is broken because it doesn't
accept "&foo" as the address of the function or array "foo".  See page
115 of Kernighan and Ritchie: "... since they are known to be functions,
the & operator is not necessary, in the same way that it is not needed
before an array name."

However, a friendly compiler ought to accept it with the & as well, since
it's unambiguous, and even consistent with the rest of pointers (that's
personal opinion, not canon).