Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Non-constant initializers
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 13:26:57 -0400
Organization: Friends of the Galactic Collective
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <6a050bb5569ef14-16a9a@gmail.com>
References: <OgcdY5.Lcq.Cst0A@btdt.invalid> <iqhpa0$n31$1@dont-email.me> <e68b19561ee2543-31bc7@gmail.com> <iqhrt1$v8n$1@dont-email.me> <9322eedb3a632f5-29a98@gmail.com> <iqmhp7$l57$1@dont-email.me> <70b21f510c7390e-cc0de@gmail.com> <iqmt7i$42s$1@dont-email.me> <92f904404cb7d63-61def@gmail.com> <0.6ca601d4a6214c706d15.20110515040125BST.878vu8y8e2.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9mti4zl2mrQmHFyxsa0q3g"; logging-data="32208"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mbL45iIVpsgjlHJcnvsuP"
User-Agent: nn 6.7.3
Content-Length: 1682
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pMWLQ0SlBVoN4PjPieyAakzNTrM=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c:4031

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 04:01:25AM +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 05:45:49PM -0400, Eric Sosman wrote:
> >> On 5/14/2011 3:25 PM, Uncle Steve wrote:
> <snip>
> >> >It could do just about anything if it was a C function, couldn't it?
> >> 
> >>     C functions cannot return arrays, nor can they return array
> >> initializers.
> >
> > Hmm.  I'm not sure why you think that's important.
> 
> It's right there in the quotes.  You asked if "it" (referring to your
> howmuchfoo function) "could do just about anything if it was a C
> function, couldn't it?".  Eric answered by pointing out two things that
> it could *not* do.  What's more, these are things that might be
> significant since the code fragment you showed:
> 
> | int foops[] = howmuchfoo(void);
> 
> suggested that howmuchfoo might be either returning an array or it might
> be trying to return an array initialiser.

But only  if it was a macro.  I'm not likely to use that exact scenario
in real code, perhaps I hammered out my initial example a little too
quickly.  I don't pretend to be an expert on C grammar.  Too often the
compiler identifies my typos and coding errors so I guess it may be
obvious I don't use a syntax-highlighting editor.

In any case, I'm not hung up on what kind of data is returned from a
function call in this usage scenario.  It may vary well come from a
file containing random data owing to filesystem corruption from
bashing my head on the keyboard of my notebook. ;)



Regards,

Uncle Steve

-- 
Should a professional politician be charged with molestation if he
kisses babies while attending political rallies?