Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: More fun with types... Message-ID: <4956@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 17:23:59 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.4956 Posted: Fri Jan 18 17:23:59 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 17:23:59 EST References: <10980@watmath.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 16 > ... In other words, should pointer-to-function types be > considered assignment-compatible ONLY if both the return type and > the formal parameter declarations match? Probably. This would seem to be a hole in the fussy type-checking of the current ANSI draft. > What do we use for a generic function pointer? Damned if I know... I think the situation would be the same as the one for data pointers before "void *": you have to use casts everywhere. It's not obvious to me that we need a function-pointer equivalent of "void *", since I don't remember any function-pointer analog of malloc. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry