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