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).