pointer definitions

Hello all,

typedef int (*foo) ();

typedef foo (*bar) ();

How to define bar with a single typedef?

I still have not understood the parsing...

Jens

re: pointer definitions

Jens Theisen wrote:hehehe

typedef int (*(*bar)())();

cute, no?

re: pointer definitions

Jens Theisen wrote:Why would you want to? The typedefs (if they were appropriately named)
make life a lot easier.

Bar being a pointer to a function with no parameters that returns a
[pointer to a function with no params that returns int]

But if you really want it, try:

typedef int (*(*bar)())();

Personally, I find the one with two typedefs much easier to read and
understand.

re: pointer definitions

Noah Roberts wrote:
To read that, walk up the precedents to the highest precendent item, bar,
and then say the name of each term in order of descending precedence, going
out.

bar is a pointer to a function that returns a pointer to a function that
returns int.
Now don't do it, and use typedefs early and often in production code!

Question for Jens: Can you write a pointer to a function that returns a
pointer to a function with the same signature and return value? ;-)

--
Phlip
http://www.greencheese.us/ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

re: pointer definitions

Jens Theisen wrote:Is this homework?

'foo' is a pointer to a function that takes no args and returns
an int. 'bar' is a pointer to a function that takes no args and
returns a pointer to a function that takes no args and returns
an int. I think it should be

typedef int (*((*bar)()))();

How to verify it? I'll leave it to you.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

re: pointer definitions

"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.comwrites:
Ah ja, now I recall..
Oooh...
struct rec : boost::function< rec () { };

If you were talking about C-pointers to functions rather than
functors, I give up!

Jens