What should be the prototype of this function ? (noonie)

[ianbrn]

Hello,
I have a struct defined thus:

typedef struct myStruct
{
int j;
} myStruct;

I saw somewhere calls with the following syntax:
f1(&*a)

What should be the protype of f1 so that it will be correct and
so that compilation will succeed ?

I am talking about two cases:
In the first, we have the following definition:
myStruct a;

in the second, we have
myStruct* a;

Is it possible with both case to have a definition of f1() so that
f1(&*a) will be correct and pass compilation ?

Any ideas?

Ian

[Nick Keighley]

On 17 Oct, 10:24, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]:

I have a struct defined thus:

typedef struct myStruct
{
int j;

} myStruct;

I saw somewhere calls with the following syntax:
f1(&*a)

What should be the protype of f1 so that it will be correct and
so that compilation will succeed ?

I am talking about two cases:
In the first, we have the following definition:
myStruct a;

in the second, we have
myStruct* a;

Is it possible with both case to have a definition of f1() so that
f1(&*a) will be correct and pass compilation ?

Any ideas?

this looks like homework to me...
--
Nick Keighley

[Mark Bluemel]

Nick Keighley wrote:

On 17 Oct, 10:24, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]:

>I have a struct defined thus:

typedef struct myStruct
{
int j;

} myStruct;

I saw somewhere calls with the following syntax:
f1(&*a)

[To the OP] Really? Where? What do you think it will do?

this looks like homework to me...

It looks like bovine excrement to me.

[vipvipvipvip.ru]

struct name { /* ... */ };

ret f(struct name *);

struct name obj1, *obj2, obj3[1], **obj4;
f(&obj);
f(obj2);
f(obj3);
f(*obj4);

Etc.

`&*p' == `&p[0]'

[Barry Schwarz]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:24:50 -0000, "ia****@gmail.com"
<ia****@gmail.comwrote:

>Hello,
I have a struct defined thus:

typedef struct myStruct
{
int j;
} myStruct;

I saw somewhere calls with the following syntax:
f1(&*a)

It would help if we new what a was.

What do you think the effect of the combined & and * operators is? For
extra points, would it make a difference if the operators were
reversed? What is the only possible type the expression &*a (or *&a)
can have (on those occasions when it is a legal expression)?

>
What should be the protype of f1 so that it will be correct and
so that compilation will succeed ?

The prototype is not the problem.

>
I am talking about two cases:
In the first, we have the following definition:
myStruct a;

What happens when you apply the * operator to a struct?

>
in the second, we have
myStruct* a;

Is it possible with both case to have a definition of f1() so that
f1(&*a) will be correct and pass compilation ?

While passing an incompatible type to a function possibly could be
"corrected" by changing the prototype, what makes you think a
prototype can magically correct a syntax error?

Again, what happens when you apply the * operator to a struct?

>
Any ideas?

Yes. Make a note of the author who wrote the call to f1. Then make
sure you never again take anything written by him seriously.
Remove del for email