From:	Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: C++ problem
Date:	Sat, 03 Oct 1998 15:39:11 -0300
Organization:	BrunNet
Lines:	19
Message-ID:	<36166F4F.77E091FE@unb.ca>
References:	<6udqfn$sdk$1 AT inf6serv DOT rug DOT ac DOT be> <360A8B31 DOT 53CF31E9 AT earthlink DOT net> <36101229 DOT C4659B15 AT unb DOT ca> <3613D00E DOT 6B294297 AT alcyone DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	usr1fton35.brunnet.net
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Note that even in ANSI C, using the address-of operator on a function
> has no effect; it's superfluous, but it certainly doesn't "take the
> address of the variable containing the address of the function," since
> there is no such thing.

    I did not know that '&' in front of a function name does nothing.  I
suspected it was like a 'void*'.  Or more correctly as 'void&', which is
auto-dereferenced (to a function), but you still can take the address of it.

--
     (\/) Endlisnis (\/)
          s257m AT unb DOT ca
          Endlisnis AT GeoCities DOT com
          Endlisnis AT BrunNet DOT Net

- Raw text -