Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {}
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:55:51 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <lnbmxx1ws8.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <f04d8120-e4c9-464b-923c-7dc262da5b5b@googlegroups.com> <49899127-bf04-4a84-a374-5bebfbe7f4f7@googlegroups.com> <fcaf090e-8d21-42fe-805e-ce1cbcc5d725@googlegroups.com> <bc31d2f8-1b50-4ab8-bf70-e9c61f510735@googlegroups.com> <nv8l1m$2oq$1@dont-email.me> <2bf83e98-eb96-4ab6-b1ca-4e6a8bd824f5@googlegroups.com> <5b33a608-8f61-4ea0-be08-080018f5772c@googlegroups.com> <nv8r1c$i54$1@dont-email.me> <87mvhjo3jw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nv9ubc$7uf$1@dont-email.me> <b4a396b5-48ff-485e-845b-dca9c66de64c@googlegroups.com> <lneg2v42t8.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <3a09f5ec-d4f7-40fa-9855-b5c3f02ce4e9@googlegroups.com> <87ziljks6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <2199a2dd-d844-4f8d-bfe0-6a7c2854277b@googlegroups.com> <87twbqlsin.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nvbaii$arc$1@dont-email.me> <87oa1yljof.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <nvcdp8$rvt$1@dont-email.me> <ln1syt3lfu.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nvddlt$fkt$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="55d562a779fc0ae2b1f2a983cf45db85"; logging-data="7665"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WYi4aQDvvYJw6CwMFAk06"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aeFfiDfKXJUkuZyu7JjlBddy58Q= sha1:ZqFPi+44GXIsbAVTEvzuNggYLD0=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:95614

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 02/11/2016 16:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 02/11/2016 02:06, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that they are problematic as you don't often see code
>>>>> like this:
>>>
>>>>>   (*A)[i];      // A is pointer to array
>>>
>>>>> You will see instead:
>>>
>>>>>   A[i];         // A is now pointer to array element, and is now
>>>>>                 // indistinguishable from a regular array
>>>
>>>>> If the syntax for the first set hadn't involved those parentheses,
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> then probably it wouldn't have been necessary to invent the forms in
>>>>> that middle set.
>>>>
>>>> Are you trying to spread more disinformation by suggesting that A[i] is
>>>> an alternative, parenthesis free, version of (*A)[i]?
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly that. Or at least when the A in A[i] is a pointer to an
>>> array element.
>>
>> I believe Ben was asking if you're suggesting that A[i] and (*A)[i] are
>> actually equivalent in C.
>
> I was suggesting they are used for the same ends.

Given what declaration of A?  Or do you need to change how A is defined?

Once again, you cannot in general understand an expression without
seeing the relevant declarations.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"