From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Message-Id: <200107091703.NAA12535@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] thread
In-Reply-To: <200107091146.MAA27082@cthulhu.dircon.co.uk>
References: <3B491B74.607DAB8D@null.net>
Cc:
Date: Mon,  9 Jul 2001 13:03:45 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c3be9e08-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

In article <200107091146.MAA27082@cthulhu.dircon.co.uk> you write:
>I think you misunderstand. I was referring to the application of '&' to
>a variable of array type, not to a type. Applied to an array type, it
                                                     ^^ a variable of
>produces a change of type but no change in value.

Errm, isn't this implementation dependent?

>An unusual case
>where the '&' operator could be replaced by a cast with no change
>in semantics.  I would say that was special treatment, (resulting
>from the special treatments of array names) albeit in accordance
>with the C standard.

But the semantics are different, as Dennis pointed out in his post.

	- Dan C.