Address of array

[Tom Stockfisch]

[]
>>>I have noticed that different compilers treat the & operator differently
>>>when it is applied to arrays.  In particular, the UNIX compiler I have
>>>been using warns against it.  K&R explicitly deny its legality...
>>I agree that it is really a design flaw in the language, to make
>>it illegal to form a pointer to an array. & should work on any
>>'object'...

Joe Yao replies
>...
>I don't really see what the problem is that people are moaning
>about.  If you want a pointer to the array, the array name itself
>coerces to a pointer containing the memory location at the beginning
>of the array.  There is no such thing as a pointer to the whole
>array:  that is a Pasqualische or Fortranian notion.  Pointers, in
>C, only point to atomic or aggregate (structure/union) objects.  I
>whole-heartedly agree that for some uses it is rather nice to use
>such things.  That is why (excuse me while I put on my flak jacket
>and asbestos suit) C is not the only language in the world worth
>using...

C *can* refer to whole arrays.
If you really want to take the address of an array rather than just
mentioning the array try
	struct ary {
		int	a[SIZE];
	}	arr1, arr2;
	...
	&arr1;
	f(arr1);
	arr1 =	arr2;
In this case 'arr1' by itself is not a pointer-constant but represents the
whole array (really structure) and '&arr1' refers to a pointer to the whole
array. 'arr1.a' is the more familiar pointer-constant pointing to the first
element of the array, 'f(arr1)' passes the whole array to the function
f(), and 'arr1 = arr2' assigns the whole array.

SO WHO NEEDS PASCAL?

--Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry